Talk:South Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan not under British rule?[edit]

This is not, strictly speaking, true. All three were British protectorates at one time or another (Bhutan being treated as a princely state). -- MichiganCharms (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan was never a British protectorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.16.65 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Iran is usually NOT part of South Asia! By far![edit]

Iran is NOT part of South Asia! Are you people for real?? Just because the United Nations think it can be included, you put it in the intro as if the UN rules Iran?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.142.220 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, not by what we think is correct or not. If the UN thinks it can be included, then that's what we're going to say here as well. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Iran do not belong to South Asia[edit]

Afghanistan and Iran are both 'iranic' countries with the same culture Southern, eastern, Western and north eastern Afghanistan do have a iranian culture and Northern afghanistan has a Central asian culture Afghanistan is part of a South asian organisation (SAARC) but also to CAREC an central asian cooperation so that's not a reason to let it be part of south asia. We don't south asian culture and your food we don't speak indo aryan languages but Iranian languages like Persian, Pashto, Balochi and we speak turkic languages like turkmen and uzbeki

We should end this discussion. You have to understand everything that is written on wikipedia is used for learning and i don't want that in the future People say Afghanistan and iran are south asian countries which they are not.Feysalafghan (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Afghanistan should be listed as sometimes included in South Asia during the introduction, as it's not considered a South Asian country by all sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.16.65 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What's so dubious?[edit]

Someone tagged the fact that Pakistan is also a major political force, along with India the largest country by size, population and economy, in the region with a "dubious" tag. The facts that Pakistan fought four wars against India, and still plays a major role in Afghan politics and a minor role in Bangladesh politics, and is a major US ally in its "war against terrorism" (in the past it was the NATO ally in the region) as well as a major Chinese ally in southern Asia should tell us something. What's so dubious here? Aditya(talkcontribs) 19:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the first is true. Pakistan is a quarter the size of India, has a 7th its economy, and only a 10th its population, basically tied w Bangladesh. Vietnam has fought wars against China and has played a major role in Cambodian politics, but we'd hardly equate it with China. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no attempt to equate. The article says that Pakistan is a major political force in the South Asia. How does that imply equating or even comparing it with any country? Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read your own question? — kwami (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe you should read your answer. India is 20 times bigger France in population, 5 times bigger in size and its economy more than double the size of France's economy. Obviously, by your reasoning, France is not a global political entity. Very curious reasoning. It doesn't count that Pakistan has a near hegemony over Afghanistan, has serious influence in Bangladesh, is a major ally to US and China, has a military expenditure of USD 7 billion, and is a nuclear power. Interesting.
Why would someone compare France to India to assert that France is a global political entity? Why would someone compare France to India to assert that it is a South Asian political entity? Japan is a major political force in Asia, but that didn't come from comparing it to China, its bigger neighbor. UAE is 9th in world in GDP per capita, 32nd in GDP and is the 6th largest military spender in Asia. But, with all those comparisons done Syria remains a much bigger political entity than UAE. Because, a political entity comes out of ambition, activity and influence, not out of size, though size helps when a country has the ambition.
Tariq Ali (The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power), T. V. Paul (The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry), Syed F. Hasnat (Global Security Watch—Pakistan), Lucian W Pye (Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority), Rajshree Jetly (Pakistan in Regional and Global Politics), Peter R. Blood (Pakistan: A Country Study), Arlene B. Tickner (Global Scholarship in International Relations) and tons of other analysts, academicians and experts have identified Pakistan as a major regional political entity. Where is the doubt? Can you explain your doubt? Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is silly. 1/10 ≠ 1. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A problem with definitions in US English[edit]

This whole article is not understood in UK English For us (I am British), the term South Asian conjures up countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc. The countries included in this category we Brits would think of as (pre-independance) India/North West Frontier.

I can't give you any intellectual references as to why this is; merely my personal experience. Many of my neighbours' families originate from this part of the world and wouldn't describe themselves as 'South Asian'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.36.83 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite some sources? Because British sources clearly describes the countries included as South Asia, and never countries like Thailand etc. Also There never was any mention of North West Frontier when describing the countries included. I come from South Asia, and I am perfectly willing put more significance to credible sources than my personal information/misinformation. Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that in the UK, "Asian" is typically understood to mean South Asian, just as in the US it is understood to mean East Asian, but that's due to immigration, where the Asian population originates. I've never heard of any confusion when "South Asian" or "East Asian" is spelled out. According to the OED, as of 1993, South Asia is the area bounded by Burma, Iran, China, and Central Asia: that is, Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent. The only other denotation they note is an isolated use for Australia from 1827. Then there's SAARC, where South Asian countries use the term "South Asia" for self-designation. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is about the "Asians", not "South Asians". Anyways, the issue should be solved now. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)