Peace and Security Review, Vol.1 No. 2 - International Centre for ...

Badrul A. Khan South Asia and Regionalism 79
identity? In this paper I analyse these issues within the ongoing dynamics of
the region. Firstly, I discuss the difficulties in imagining South Asia as region,
which remain embedded in the historical grievances and mistrust that
countries in South Asia have towards each other. Secondly, I delve on the
complex strategic context in which South Asia remains situated, which offers
both positive energies and negative constrains.
II. DEFINING SOUTH ASIA
It is convenient and indeed less dangerous to split South Asia from the rest
of the world and recast it as a discrete region geographically than the intent
to make it look homogenous in political, social and cultural terms. The
reason is ⎯ Western Orientalists’ definition of South Asia, despite being widely
criticised, even derided, appears more justifiable compared to how other
regions such as the Middle East, Central Asia or East/South East Asia had
been defined. While in the latter cases the priority had been on the position
occupied by those regions in relation to Britain, contrastingly, a far more
naturally identifiable settings in terms of definition and physical location
marks South Asia’s identity. This is reflected in the way the Himalayan
mountain range separates the region in the north while the Indian Ocean
creates the kind of enclosure necessary for such a definition to work.
Comprised of the seven countries ⎯ Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal,
Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives ⎯ the region carries a common
history of colonization both by the European powers, as well as the common
invaders from Central Asia, Persia, the Arab world and even Greece for
thousands of years. As much as it is continuous, this history has also been
witnessed to the rise and fall of civilizations and accompanying social-political
institutions and ideologies impacting on the whole of South Asia evenly.
Hence, its culture, politics, economics share more than they separate and
despite diversity, a common thread of unity binds all of them together into a
single whole.
It is also possible to highlight Indo-centrism as the main trait of South
Asia, although it is apparently hard to justify why state like Myanmar falls
out of this Indo-centric characterisation, while Maldives and Afghanistan do
not. However, it may be necessary to accept the arbitrary nature of any
definition whether it is a region or any other entity, in which the process of
exclusion and inclusion remains quite elastic, if not flexible. Despite this
lapse South Asia as recognised widely is what used to be the British India,
ubiquitously shaped by the syncretic medieval heritage created from the
confluence of Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim civilisations, and accompanied
by other minor streams of culture. Hence, it is with more ease that common
Vol.1, No.2 2008 pp.77-93