Identity vs identification

Discussions of any question concerning 'identity' in Southasia are always bedevilled by a failure to make one important distinction: that between identity and identification. So, when we ask about the identity of something, we usually look for some trait that makes it the thing that it is; thereafter, we can ask about who shares that trait. As such, we are constantly obsessed with such questions as, What is the 'Indian identity', or the 'Nepali' or the 'Pakistani'? What do those we designate by these names share in common? Then, we argue feverishly over what it is that we do or do not actually have in common. But this way of posing the question is a dead end: you may share a trait with someone else, but you also may not identify much with that trait. Conversely, you may not share a common trait with someone else, but you could still identify with them to a significant degree.

The point of this prelude is to say that a question regarding the relevance of the concept of Southasia should not be interpreted to mean, Does Southasia have a discernible identity? Some may feel that it does; others may not. The more appropriate question is not what identity we have at a descriptive level, but rather what it is with which we choose to identify. We can argue for all kinds of cultural connections across Southasia, even a sense of geographical destiny, but these are neither here nor there if the citizens of Southasia do not choose to identify with a specific forward-looking political project. The relevance of 'Southasia' will not be found in any fact, as it were, but will instead come from the fact that we want to make something of this concept. Europe as a political project exists not because of common traits, but because its citizens chose to construct their own. When they cease believing in those choices, the concept of Europe will cease to make sense, common civilisational traits notwithstanding. Therefore, we must not base discussions of Southasian identity on arguments over what various people have in common. Instead, we must think of what we would like to have in common.