https://www.juggernaut.in/

“South Asia” is not just about India and Pakistan though. It also includes Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and (by some definitions) Burma and Afghanistan. It makes sense in a regional studies context when you want to explore issues that go beyond specific countries.

Anyway, it is an established term in academia. Universities offer degrees in “South Asian Studies” and not “Indian Studies” and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

“I don’t see the beef over say, East Asia, even though it, like South Asia is dominated by one big nation, China whose neighbors such as Japan and Korea like to define itself in opposition to it, just like India’s.”

I don’t know about the US but in India the term is opposed by a section of the more based readership because it’s seen as an erasure of Indian contributions and an attempt to ride on our coat-tails.

The term itself seems benign so that most people not actively involved in these discussions don’t mind using it. You’ll start seeing it become more popular.

The general rule of thumb is that when there’s a good news from a non-Indian, you highlight their ethnicity while you shove Indian achievements under ‘South Asian’.
Similarly, you highlight the nationality when there’s a bad thing done by an Indian and hide it when done by a non-Indian.

Ex- Calling it ‘Asian’ grooming gangs in UK when everyone clearly knows who is responsible.

Or highlighting caste problems specifically among Hindus but when it comes to gender discrimination, you suddenly call it ‘South Asian’ culture ignoring the fact that Indian women in general have much more rights than than Pakis.

This happens often enough that you can spot a clear ideological agenda here. The teams are usually along predictable lines.
Left liberals+Indian Muslims+Indic Pakis+disaffected Canadian Sikhs vs Indians who want to dissociate with Pak.

Maybe there is even some amount of opposition to it in the US because a large chunk of Indians there are first gen.

IMO Indians in India should ignore all this and just focus on developing the country. Once we are economically powerful enough, we’ll start to dictate the terms.

Well, is South Asian or “Asian American” any more artificial than black, white or for that matter, Latino/Hispanic, also made by the US government? Clearly these are all US government terms, but they do reflect how people see others.

If you see a blond guy, you’ll say “white”, not Polish first, if you didn’t know the surname. If you see a Nigerian, people will refer to her as “black”.

If you see a brown-skinned person with an Indic-language surname, and you don’t know what’s the national origin (or even if the national origin matters, maybe they are generations removed from South Asia, whether in Britain or in Trinidad) what’s wrong with saying South Asian?

People have no problem saying “white” or “black” though these lines were (and often brutally) imposed on its group members against their permission (e.g. one-drop rule), or “European” and “sub-Saharan African” lumps together many nations and draws the line based on racial genetics or appearance, the term “Middle Eastern” is eurocentric, people still use it, Latin American was popularized by Napoleon and caught on, so why is “South Asian” so “problematic”?

Also for some reason, Americans don’t and never seemed to care greatly about disaggregating black or white groups (even during the time when Americans cared a lot about what type of white — Slavic, Mediterranean, Northern Europeans etc.) but really did care about disaggregating Asian groups while controlling immigration history and counting residents (and did care going back to the 19th and 20th century as evidenced by Asian groups getting labeled by nationality like “Chinese”, “Japanese” and even in the earlier 20th century, “Hindu” for what’s now broadly called South Asian).

Also, setting aside US-derived ethnic or racial terms, is “South Asian” honestly that much more artificial than other terms for world regions or people who descend from large world regions?

I don’t see the beef over say, East Asia, even though it, like South Asia is dominated by one big nation, China whose neighbors such as Japan and Korea like to define itself in opposition to it, just like India’s. I don’t see calls for East Asia as a term to be abolished due to downplaying or underemphasizing the Sinosphere or Chinese sphere of influence.

yeah it’s created in area studies. but it’s been ’embraced’ by secular liberal brownz.

it’s like ‘asian american.’ the term was created by the census to replace ‘oriental’ and various nationality groups. but it’s been embraced by asian american activists, especially chinese/japanese/koreans.

Yes, I identify as South Asian.

I thought that the term was created by the State Department though.

Presumably, the magazine wants to appeal to those Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who are more “desi” identified–nothing wrong with trying to expand your audience.

it’s a very small audience. but yeah, that’s the reason ‘south asian’ as a term was created.

are you part of that segment? i know sarah haider is. basically it’s the more secular nonreligious portion usually

There used to be an organization called the Friends of South Asia in the bay area. (perhaps they still exist). They consisted mainly of old Indian uncles and a few not-so-old Pakistanis.

They made a point to protest every act of Intolerance in India or by anyone Indian. Once there was an accusation of molestation by a teenage Pakistani girl against a colleague of hers who happened to be an Indian boy. The Friends stood outside the place of employment with placards. (Later it turned out they had been friends but she felt compelled to pretend it was non-consensual for fear her parents were about to find out). Another time there was a proposal that a street called Persian Drive (no one knows why) should be renamed Temple Drive (a Hindu temple happened to be there). Some Persians started a protest against it alleging the proposal was made by “Hindu rightwing Nationalists”. The “Friends” joined in. The temple authorities quickly backed down. During the aftermath of the Godhra fire, the Friends were in a tizzy of protesting hysteria.

OF course, all through this time, Pakistan underwent all sorts of things – a military coup, political assassinations, terrorist acts on Indian soil etc. etc. Pakistanis were also found to have conducted terrorist acts on American soil. The Friends were never bothered to have any position on any of it.

No wonder their numbers never increased. 🙂

Presumably, the magazine wants to appeal to those Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who are more “desi” identified–nothing wrong with trying to expand your audience.