Who is the ‘any group’?

That’s right.. this is what I said later.

For ABDs it is a different story. If they find it worthy they can join with any group they want to boost their numbers.

Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in South Asia anymore. As we are in America, on a blog run by mostly (all?) Americans, the fact that in South Asia, there is no ‘South Asian’ identity is not that relevant.

In ancient India people generally identified themselves by their clan/caste. Buddha himself was often referred to by his clan name “Gautam” and he had no objection to caste as such and in fact was proud of his caste (he was only against caste atrocities).

Brahminical deceit and ignorance. Firstly, Buddha’s objection to the caste system is very well known; you are lying through your teeth here. Secondly, his clan was Sakya, not Gautam. Read and weep:

http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt21.htm

“Caste, which was a matter of vital importance to the brahmins of India, was one of utter indifference to the Buddha, who strongly condemned the debasing caste system”

” On one occasion a caste-ridden brahmin insulted the Buddha saying. “Stop, thou shaveling! Stop, thou outcast!” The Master, without any feeling of indignation, gently replied:

“Birth makes not a man an outcast, Birth makes not a man a brahmin; Action makes a man an outcast, Action makes a man a brahmin.”

(Sutta-nipâta, 142)

He then delivered a whole sermon, the Vasala Sutta, explaining to the brahmin in detail the characteristics of one who is really an outcast (vasala).”

Razib, I don’t know. But I think another question along these lines one could ask would be “Was there a group of people in the Indian subcontinent prior to the arrival of Muslims who identified themselves as being neither Jain nor Buddhist?”

In ancient India people generally identified themselves by their clan/caste. Buddha himself was often referred to by his clan name “Gautam” and he had no objection to caste as such and in fact was proud of his caste (he was only against caste atrocities). In fact up until the 19th century when the Brits did their census, the question regarding religion was unintelligible to most hindus. Many of them just put down their caste in place of religion.

Sure, it is not my idea that “South Asia” should form a EU like arrangement. If you are talking about Bangladesh not having riots, I don’t know enough to comment on the period now.. I for sure know there was ethnic cleansing after 1947 and in the 50s. There was a Dalit supporter of Jinnah from Bengal, Jogindernath Mandal who was the first law minister of Pakistan. Read his resignation letter here. I don’t know if India cleansed and drove out the Muslims now or at least made it clear that Muslims would be second class citizens and the state/official religion would be Hinduism, 50 years from now any Indian can claim proudly see we don’t have any riots.

http://bengalvoice.com/uproot_appendix1.htm Jogendra Nath Mandal’s Resignation Letter to Liaquat Ali Khan FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION DATED 8TH OCTOBER 1950 OF JOGENDRA NATH MANDAL, MINISTER FOR LAW AND LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ADDRESSED TO LIAQUAT ALI KHAN, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN

Let’s not be naive. We can all play this game of one-upmanship; there are more than enough religious wackos in each of these “South Asian” nations that we can all point at and titter. And no one is trying to force these nations into a confederation or loose association immediately (that’s something that I, and presumably Chachaji, believe will happen organically in the future). I just happen to think that there still enough similarities and commonalities (apparently we all like visiting and kvetching in this blog, for instance) between desis (ABDs, DBDs, Americans, Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans) that a label like “South Asian” is not entirely irrelevant.

I’m not naive and this is not a game of one-upmanship. Clearly India and Pakistan (that comprised of Bangladesh) have decided to split and go different paths and the different histories over the last 60 years show that they are really not that compatible. Trying to join them in a political union would be a disaster. I don’t mind people enjoying Bollywood movies or Punjabi singers / Bengali literature on either sides of the border. But it is better to stop with that.

For ABDs it is a different story. If they find it worthy they can join with any group they want to boost their numbers.

PS, good dig on the Pakistani passport. Seems to be targetted particularly against Qaidanis and Ahmadis. Neither the Bangladeshi nor the Indian passport application forms have any fields/queries regarding religion.

I don’t think I’m ready to have a similar “shared value” in the case of India where I need to declare XXX caste to be outside of Hinduism while applying for my passport.

That’s opening another can of worms, isn’t it, PS? A Bangladeshi could just as easily be justified in saying that she wasn’t ready to have a similar “shared value” with another nation where, despite a professed secular constitution, what appears to be state-sanctioned (or at least state-government-looking-the-other-way-ish) religious riots and massacres can occur. For what it’s worth, she might also point out that despite individual cases of religious discrimination, neither the EU nor Bangladesh have experienced such religion-based riots/massacres

Let’s not be naive. We can all play this game of one-upmanship; there are more than enough religious wackos in each of these “South Asian” nations that we can all point at and titter. And no one is trying to force these nations into a confederation or loose association immediately (that’s something that I, and presumably Chachaji, believe will happen organically in the future). I just happen to think that there still enough similarities and commonalities (apparently we all like visiting and kvetching in this blog, for instance) between desis (ABDs, DBDs, Americans, Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans) that a label like “South Asian” is not entirely irrelevant.

why can’t bangladeshis and pakistanis take ownership of the word india? just because a newly formed republic decided to name itself after a civilization in 1950?

Yes, at least, (I think) in the case of Bangladeshis. Sorry, rar, but I thought I had already touched on this upthread. People who have recently “realized” (as in actualized, not just thought of it) a national identity, realized it by eschewing another national identity, are unlikely to be comfortable with a label (India) that could be confused with a third national identity. Yes, it’s not particularly rational, given that what we are talking about is using the label for the cultural-civilizational-historical identity, not the national identity, but that’s human emotional baggage for you.