South Asia is home to one-fifth of the global population and considered a dynamic region given its demographic advantage. The region is also diverse: politically, culturally and socially. There are often talks of pan-South Asian identity, often in reference to common foods, festivities, and the popularity of Indian soft power, most significantly in the form of Bollywood.But what exactly is South Asia? Is it a conglomerate of eight states? Is it about the common cultural heritage of around 5,000 years and the cross-cutting ties between communities—also expressed as roti-beti relationship—or is it about the rivalry and skepticism among different states? It is difficult to pinpoint a particular aspect. There is often a tendency to view South Asia in the context of solely India-Pakistan relationship. Secondly, given the historical context, India looms large as the sole representative of the region in all spheres—political, social and cultural.
But this is a skewed representation of the region. South Asia is about much more than India. First, we need to critique the idea of South Asia, which is often expressed as a conglomerate of eight states. What is often overlooked is that the present political boundaries are fluid and largely the creation of British colonialism. These boundaries are the result of the past exercises to build states along the Westphalia model that gave primacy to the idea of sovereignty in relation to state boundaries. A critical look at the history suggests that such artificial boundaries are often less important than popular cultures. Language, in particular, has helped create nations.
It is difficult for the political actors, heirs to British colonialism steeped in the idea of rigid identities, to look at the South Asian region through the lens of its cultural dynamism: How Nepali, Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi creates a nation by going beyond political boundaries of India, Nepal and Burma. Similar is the case with Urdu, Tamil and Pashto which binds people in present day India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Not only have political players attempted to create tight hierarchies but they have also looked to contest a shared history. The fact that Buddha (actually Prince Siddhartha) was born in a place which currently falls under the political jurisdiction of the state of Nepal has been at the center-stage of Nepali nationalism. Similarly, while India claims to be the cradle of civilization, the actual location of site of Mohenjo-daro is the Pakistani province of Sindh; likewise, Nepal Mandal, also considered among the progenitors of human civilization, is located in Kathmandu.
What is perplexing is the failure of eight states to place shared cultural history as a common point of reference. As is often the case, social connections seem to trump politics in this part of the world where you have Ghulam Ali and Asha Bhole singing Nepali, song whereas Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is a rage in India. Likewise, foreign-born Udit Narayan, Manisha Koirala and Jacqueline Fernandez are icons in Bollywood.
As successors to the British colonial empires, most South Asian states have given continuity to the divisive agendas of their colonial masters, especially perpetuated in the form of brutal exercise of power especially through their bureaucracies and law enforcement agencies. The situation has been compounded by adoption of the West ministerial model of governance that only benefits a handful of elites. This is particularly worrying as this form of governance is not only repressive but also extractive.
The new centers formed in the post-colonial periods wanted 'development' and they in turn required plundering of environment and communities, often leading to disgruntlement in some 'internal colonies' of their supposed compatriots. Therefore, Bastar feels alienated from New Delhi, so does Jumla from Kathmandu, Jaffna from Colombo and Balochistan from Islamabad.
There is a need for alternative political structures and developmental models based on shared history. The Gandhian ideals of Swaraj which called for minimum dependence on outside world and interdependence among communitarians, is worth considering. Also, the existing development discourse perpetuates extractive institutions. Therefore, a discourse on aligning development with nature would foster strong grass-root democracy.
South Asia has been a ground of political experiments with models ranging from parliamentary democracy to benign monarchy, with differing effects. However, one of the missing links is critique of the idea of nation-state. Borrowed from the West European experience, nation-states don't capture the reality of the region. In fact, in the post-colonial setup, it was instead the state-nation model advanced under various garbs, including by the party-less Panchayat. This was pronounced as local political actors craved for vote-based democracy and bureaucratization of the state.
With such 'democratisation', states moved away from the people and in turn increased the gulf between peoples of shared cultural heritage. Therefore a strong citizen-led movement is necessary to put pressure on the states to move towards a borderless South Asia.
The authors are assistant professors at Kathmandu School of Law
Related story
Ujaya is one of the curators selected for Show Asia Showcase 20...
