Our own F.A.Q. defines “South Asia” in the following way:
What is South Asia?It’s the countries in the area of the Indian subcontinent which share common ethnic and cultural roots (food, family, Bollywood). SAJA opines that South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. The U.S. State Department also includes Afghanistan.
<
p>Well it seems we may now have to tweak our F.A.Q. just a bit. The U.S. State Department reports:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says South Asia and Central Asia are high on her list of global priorities, and the State Department is adjusting its bureaus so that the same teams of experts and diplomats are focused on both regions.“One of the things that we did in the State Department was to move the Central Asian republics out of the European bureau, which really was an artifact of their having been states of the Soviet Union, and to move them into the bureau that is South Asia, which has Afghanistan, India and Pakistan,” Rice said January 5.
“It represents what we’re trying to do, which is to think of this region as one that will need to be integrated, and that will be a very important goal for us,” Rice told reporters in Washington. (See related story.)
The five Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are predominantly Muslim nations with a combined population of nearly 60 million.
<
p>The New Eurasia Blog opines:
This is an interesting move for the State Department, and potentially a problematic one. While Central Asia’s being grouped with the rest of the former Soviet Union might be an “artifact” of history, it is an important one. Over a hundred years of dominance and control has left its mark on the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, and officials experienced with South Asian states like Afghanistan and India may lack an important context of understanding for the region.
<
p>I know that it isn’t going to go over well with some people that Russian speaking Muslims are moving in to their “neighborhood.” 
See Related Post: A New Spook at the Agency
I did read about Condi’s reorganization plans for “South Asia” a few months ago…what surprises me about this regrouping is that geographically, historically, conceptually, and operationally, the Central Asian “stans” have a lot more in common with Western China (Xinjiang province) than with South Asia.
It seems kind of limiting to group the “stans” with South Asia, which is and has been a self-contained geopolitical unit for millenia…if religion-as-ethnicity is the common denominator, then what’s the difference between extending “South Asia” as we refer to it to include Burma, Thailand, parts of Indonesia, etc…they share the South Asian religion-as-ethnicity experience as well…
Moreover, the stans politically group themselves with OSCE, the SCO, and the CSTO in the context of international organizations – none of which include South Asia states (save for the SCO where India and Pakistan recently acquired observer status). Doesn’t self-perception carry any weight anymore?!
Sure, just like Leftist politicians who are sometimes “Indians” taking power in America’s “neighborhood”. Next stop Mehico!
I think one of the commentors on the central Asia had it explained better:
Central Asia does have some cultural similarities with South Asia.
“It represents what we’re trying to do, which is to think of this region as one that will need to be integrated, and that will be a very important goal for us,” Rice told reporters in Washington. (See related story.)
LOL so America/the West/whitey gets to define/manipulate/categorize/unite/divide who and what we are again. I wonder if this counts as Eurocentric discourse 🙂 Why wouldn’t they unite India with the far more prosperous Southeast Asia–which shares very many cultural links as well, rather than with the theater of the Great Game?
Viva South Asia! Viva the State Department! Viva the CIA! Viva Che!
Rice is an idiot, plain and simple.
She’s probably gotten confused from hearing India being called ‘Hindustan’ somewhere in the course of her recent travels. Maybe we’d better start calling India Bharat right away, print new maps, etc…. My question is, what are the chances Condi’s going to be around to do all this integrating — in Real Life? Or is her idea that the bureau, once reorged, will take on a life of its own?
<
blockquote>I know that it isn’t going to go over well with some people that Russian speaking Muslims are moving in to their “neighborhood.”
I for one welcome our new state department appointed eurasian uncles and aunties.
It is interesting to note that the most popular group blog in the ‘neighborhood’ is (save anna) made up of penis toting ethnic Indians. Do you see how hypocritical this is, or are Indians the new whites ?
Take a look here. An Ex RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) operative is saying in India Defence Review, that ‘India needs to refocus attention on Pak-occupied Gilgit and Baltistan’ Gilgit and Baltistan are in the NWFP area of Pakistan.
India has old relations with the Central Asian region and the region figures prominently in its energy policy apart from, India’s regional domination ambition. Just in recent past India and Russia agreed to jointly operate out of Tajik Air Base
Following are excerpts from RAW analyst article:
Vikram Sood of RAW says :
He adds:
Do you see how hypocritical this is…
Bullshit. We claim nowhere to represent anyone other than ourselves. You’re mixing up topics with tokenism.
If the only two choices for the State Dept. are to move the Central Asian republics into the South Asia bureau or keep them in the Europe bureau, it probably makes more sense to make the move. However, ideally they would have their own bureau (probably not feasible right now). They obviously do have SOME cultural and historical links with South Asia (mostly endless invasions of India) but clearly form their own cluster. “South Asia” is already pushing the limits in terms of being a viable label for the region (in my opinion). Extending and expanding this to include wider and wider arcs (with less and less tangible cultural links) dilutes the whole concept even more. A lot of these Central Asian republics have links with Turkey; should we include Turkey in our new grouping? Not only that – they are quite different from the countries already included within South Asia. If you compare India and Pakistan for example, regardless how much the Pakistanis may deny it, the cultural similarities are obvious; compare Kazakhstan with India and the similarities are few and far-between.
rice is black.
This is slighlty OT, but I was wondering what others here think about this – Wikipedia’s PIO page has the following bit:
Yes, Central Asia has a lot of similarities with the Xinjiang region of China, but not with the majority of (Han) Chinese. India has plenty of ancient connections with the region (via the silk route and thereafter). And my buddies at the Lonely Planet forums tell me that Bollywood is a great ice-breaker in many of the stans. I think Indians just need to export Bollywood diplomacy aggressively and the world will be ours 😀
The other notable thing is that the central Asian “stan”s have been inaccessible during the USSR period. Iron curtain and all. They are only accessible since 1992, when India devoloped relations with these nations. I am assuming the same for Pakistan.
Well, there has been an interesting tradition of Indian scholars studying Central Asia during Soviet times. I had some of them on my uni’s reading list – and to be honest with you, their stuff was among the best the literature had to offer. They were not affected too much by Cold War thinking and analysed the region in a very sober and scholarly fashion.
There is also a discussion of State’s decision here: http://www.registan.net/?p=6162