Term Paper

Topic: Validity of South Asia as a region Course: Feminist movements in South Asia Submitted To: Samia Vasa

Submitted By: Cheshta Arora MA Gender studies, 1st Semester

Introduction:
The terms South Asia and South Asian perspectives have become so normalized in the academics and research that it is now taken as a given axiom by both scholars coming from the west as well as from South Asia itself. This normalization of the term has led to its acceptance without much critical thought. The following assignment will attempt to critically look at the construction of the term South Asia that has gained much momentum in the field of academics. I mark the pros and cons of the term and its future through four readings namely Uma Chakravartis Archiving the nation-state in feminist praxis: A South Asian Perspective (2009), Introduction to the book South Asian Feminisms (2012) by Ania Loomba and Rittya A. Lukose, Ashley Tellis Ethics, Human Rights, and the LGBT discourses in India (2011) and Adnan Hossains Beyond Emasculation: Being Muslim and Becoming Hijra in South Asia (2012),. As can be seen, though these four readings have been published in the last decade however, all the four understand, use and look at this arbitrary geographical region that comes under the term South Asia very differently. I attempt to problematize the term South Asia discussing the problems and benefits of such a construction focusing on the way it has been dealt with in the above mentioned readings arguing that south Asia as a region should be accepted with all it complexities that cannot be reduced to being merely advantageous or disadvantageous, the methodology that both Ashely Tellis and Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose advocate

Before beginning it is important to describe, in very simple term, the politics that goes behind defining boundaries to mark specific regions and assumptions that come after defining a region. Defining the boundaries of a certain region is often based on including areas that share common characteristics and traits and excluding regions that differ from the ones included. Regions that

are included are expected to shed their diversities and present a collective view of unity that can challenge the regions that are outside the boundaries. Along with that it is also assumed that they will forever be anti-thetical to regions that are outside the boundaries maintaining the dichotomy of self and the other. In the following assignment I present how South Asia as a region differs from these common assumptions and the success of this region lies only when it is understood without these common assumptions.

***

Ania Loomba and Rittya A. Lukose in the last section of their Introduction briefly discuss the history and emergence of South Asian Studies in the west and in the regions that come under the term South Asia highlighting the two sides of the term. South Asia as an area study emerged in the west (signifying western Europe and North America) after the Second World War and was shaped by colonial knowledge production (Loomba and Lukose, 22). However, the other side of the coin emerged in 1985 when the governments of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka collectively formed SAARC-South Asian Association for Regional Corporation i.e. the term South Asia was readily accepted by the post-colonial nations as well. The frenzied emergence of South Asian Perspective in the post-colonial scholarship stands as a testimony to the fact that this supra-national union is now largely accepted and is now changing the contours of the South Asian studies in the western academy as well. However, despite this normalization what is important is that the critical relation with the term and the region that comes under it should never be lost for it is entrenched with its own problems some of which are the arbitrariness inherent in the way the region south Asia is marked and the instability caused by

this arbitrariness; the geo-politics that goes along with it, the advantages and disadvantages of taking it as a collective bedrock despite its inherent diversity and differences, and finally the wests interest in the creation of this region. All these problems stand valid and by using the aforementioned four readings for illustration the assignment will discuss the way the term has been used and the way each reading brings out the various complex problems and aspects of using the term South Asia that I have just briefly mentioned above.

South Asia as a region is formed of different nations that are believed to have some common political, economic and cultural conditions. All the regions have gone through the process of colonialism, violent bourgeoisie nationalism and then post-colonialism. The linguistic, cultural and religious identities fuse together into different nation-states. Consequently, construction of this region is justified on the basis of these above mentioned similarities shared by different nationstates within the region.

However, the validity of this supra-nation union is often questioned in the academia and it isnt as simple and obvious as it appears to be. The debate around questions such as can the construction help us surpass the national boundaries considering the violent process of drawing national boundaries that occurred in the Indian sub-continent (partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 and then Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1971) and the period of unfriendly relationships that followed thereafter and questions arguing the validity of such a transcendence of national boundaries is often picked-up in the post-colonial scholarship. With respect to this Uma Chakravarty essay and Ania Loomba and Rittya A. Lukose take a side that emphasizes upon the ability of South Asia and benefits of surpassing the national boundaries for feminist scholars in South Asia. They take South

Asia as a collective term that can be compared and juxtaposed with the West. Not just compare it with the west but to discuss the scholarship and politics that can emerge out of the common history of colonialism, post-colonialism and globalization of these nation-states and the way this scholarship can challenge the knowledge production and division of knowledge production whereby west is always seen as a production house of theory that is then applied on non-western nation states. For Loomba and Lukose surpassing the national boundaries enables feminists belonging to different nation states of South Asia to establish a dialogue among each other and between South Asian scholarship and feminist scholarship in some other location.

Also, surpassing the national boundaries offers special advantage to feminist scholarship and historiography. It allows feminist scholarship to be able to scrutinize and look critically at their own nation-states. The advantage of surpassing the borders to chart out the common trajectories within different nation states to bring out a scholarship that speaks to all of them collectively and can help develop substantial criticism of the nation-states can be seen in Uma Chakravartys essay. She takes the given region of South Asia collectively to talk about the degree in which the feminist politics has dealt with nationalism in different nation-states within that region and the way when collectively taken it can highlight certain lessons that everyone can learn from. (Chakravarty, 35). She invests on the anxieties that all the post-colonial nation are equally facing across the region of South Asia and the work on the nation state that feminist scholarship in the region has to begin. For Loomba and Lukose too feminist scholarship emerging from South Asia can productively enrich the larger horizon of feminist theorizing (Loomba and Lukose, 1) across national boundaries.

Indeed, construction of this region does allow us to make certain connection beyond national boundaries and come to certain issues and theories that can be applied equally to all nation states in South Asia and other locations as well. However, this desire to present all different nations together in one single light; as one single unit can lead to obscuring the differences that exist in real. Along with that it can also lead to privileging of one view presenting it as valid and applicable to all. This brings us to question of geo-politics entrenched in that area. The question of geopolitics is important when dealing with South Asia. Uma Chakravarty takes up only Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka and India and yet is able to give out a South Asian Perspective, Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose too point out in their essay that even despite their detailed attempt to engage with different dialogues across different locations in South Asia their book cannot possibly be free of the geo-politics within the region. (Loomba and Lukose, 2). The question of geo-politics is entrenched in two readings, Uma Chakravarty, and Ania Loomba and Rittya A. Lukose as India holds a dominant position within these two readings. However, unlike Chakravarty, Loomba and Lukose do claim an awareness of this problem in their Introduction.

In a similar light, Adnan Hossains essay differs from these two in his treatment of South Asia. In his essay his aim is not to highlight the common issues and aspects revolving around Hijrahood in South Asia. Instead, Adnan Hossains essay brings out the diversity that should not get obscured when dealing with Hijrahood in South Asia. He does not take South Asia as a collective region juxtaposing it collectively with something else but compares different regions within it. This reading helps us to problematize the view that South Asia too can be seen collectively. It brings out the different side of the region. While common traits between different nation states do bind the region, the diversity too is enough to question the unity of the South Asia as a region. However,

as mentioned above the region demands an understanding that goes beyond this dichotomy of unity and diversity. (The point will be elaborated in the later part of the assignment).

Another issue that emerges around the discourse of South Asia is the role played by this construction in politics of global knowledge production. This Question of knowledge production emerges in all the four readings under scrutiny. Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose in their introduction consider South Asian scholarship to be a fertile ground out of which important postcolonial critique of colonialism and nationalism can emerge. Emergence of scholarship from nonwestern countries during 50s and 60s was an attempt to ground and challenge the alleged universal theories that originated from the west but claimed to speak for all. For Loomba and Lukose scholarship coming from South Asia fall into this tradition and despite certain huge exceptions it has been able to provide analogous insights as they analyze the place of gender in sout h Asia history and society (Loomba and Lukose, 15). However, South Asia also runs the risk of falling into similar kind of essentialism that it wanted to dethrone within western scholarship. This risk of essentialism gets highlighted in Adnan Hossains essay.

Both Adnan Hossain and Loomba deal with the ability of South Asian scholarship to challenge the euro-centrism present in western scholarship. However, Adnan Hossains essay works on two levels. First is his attempt to challenge the euro-centrism inherent in the knowledge production. He attempts to smash the stereotypes pertaining to Hijrahood in the western scholarship. Second, his piece also challenges the dominance of India in the South Asian region by challenging two conventional tropes on the making of Hijrahood in South Asia (Hossain, 496). He busts the stereotypical notions of emasculation pertaining to the practice of Hijrahood which is then

associated with Islam. Such associations have largely emerged from existing widespread discourse in India that tends to serve a different political purpose in the country but is presented as applying to all regions across South Asia. Adnan Hossain in this sense becomes important for he tends to de-romanticize the construction of South Asia as a region surpassing differences and brings into fore front the politics pervading that region itself.

Ashley Tellis too gives important insights pertaining to the question of knowledge production in his essay. By tracing the debates among western feminists regarding sexuality and then the way a particular understanding of sexuality as a concept emerging from those debates in the west were adapted by feminists in India, he argues for the validity of the concepts that get imported from the west and are directly placed in our region without much critical relation with them. This problematizes the claim that the region South Asia can act as a bedrock out of which new scholarship can emerge that in turn can change the scales of knowledge production. Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose counter this gap between theory and practice whereby western theories are applied on the ground by claiming that most recent debates in and around south Asia do not fall into this divide (Loomba and Lukose, 16). They support their various claims by giving examples from different scholars and activists that their book has brought together.

Ashley Tellis article differs from all three in his treatment of South Asia and deserves some detailed discussion. Ashley Telis piece doesnt directly refer to South Asia nor does it make any claim of speaking for the entire region, however, apart from discussing politics of knowledge (discussed in the preceding paragraph production, he also raises important questions concerning, activism, NGO politics and funding etc. by picking up one area i.e. the LGBT discourse in India.

While discussing South Asia as a region, one mistake that is often made is that it is isolated from the larger structure which it inhabits and is seen only as a sight of subversion. However, it is known that structures at the margin as well as the larger and dominant structures always tend to infiltrate each other. Regions at the margins often look different from the mainstream region however on closer look they appear as being shaped by the politics of the dominant and mainstream regions. In a similar light, Ashley Tellis piece helps us to locate and situate South Asia within the larger structures highlighting the way mainstream and dominant western regions with the processes of globalization and neo-liberalism tend to infiltrate South Asia. In the current politics NGOs are often supposed as occupying the space that is beyond the questions of politics and corporate profits. They are associated with moral superiority, good work for the betterment of society and consequently are projected as beyond and above capitalist processes of gains and profits (Tellis, 157). By bringing into light this politics behind the culture of NGOs and funding developed during 50s and 60s, and illustrating it through one example of LGBT discourse in India, he deromanticizes the space occupied by the NGOs in the world and specifically in South Asia. He locates NGOs and other similar organizations within the corporate structures working for profit for the richer nations of the North. Thus, for Ashely, South Asia as a region becomes a dumping ground for the west. Dumping ground both for the theories emerging in the west and for dumping its neo-liberal capital into the economies of countries in the south (Tellis, 154). This analyses doesnt differ much from the politics of Orientalism as discussed by Edward Said in his book whereby legitimacy of colonialism is maintained using the trope of white mans burden of bringing the torch of civilization in supposedly barbaric non-west regions. However, the question (that is dealt with in the last section) that remains is can the construction of South Asia

be equated with politics of orientalism or is there something more complex inherent in it that makes it different from that.

Also, it isnt enough to locate NGOs within the economic and market processes of capitalism or discuss the ways the structures of globalization and capitalism construct the region of South Asia, what is important is to understand what this does to the political fervor in the South Asia and forces us to ask if South Asia can really be a sight out of which new political concepts and agendas can emerge. Agendas that can help us question the basic structures around us which is often claimed as an advantage of constructing this region. As Ashley Tellis points out, the concepts are merely imposed upon a specific community without much engagement. This leaves us to ask whether construction of South Asia helps us move beyond the dichotomy between west and east created during colonialism by creating productive scholarship that can enrich the already existing work or does it reaffirm the same old binaries of self and other, us and them, occident and orient.

As we can see this through above analyses of different issues around South Asia, the debate around the validation of construction of South Asia always falls within the binaries of similarity and dissimilarity, west V/S east, theory and practice etc. However the need of the hour is to move beyond all these dichotomies and to accept these different and opposing elements together. This moving beyond is what Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose try to do through their introduction and their book as a whole. In their introduction Loomba and Lukose bring out all the above mentioned issues regarding South Asia. The similarities and asymmetries that exist between different nation states, the importance of south Asian feminist scholarship and how it shapes the scholarship

outside the region, the geo-politics existing within the region, economic globalization and NGO politics all find place in their introduction. However, despite their awareness of all these issues, for Ania Loomba and Rittya Lukose discussing the validity of South Asia as such is not important. For them what is important is to discuss the political-economic-and cultural conditions within which South Asia as a region is embedded (which they do by discussing all those issues) and how the scholarship emerging out of these political, social and cultural contour can reshape and enrich the exiting pools of knowledge. Also, how these issues themselves have continuously prompted one another in South Asia. Ashish Tellis methodology too follows similar lines of paying attention to tiniest of details and discontinuities and to not seek control but rather see where that attention takes us (Tellis, 165). Thus, a stand on South Asia cannot be taken in merely black and white terms as being either problematic or being completely advantageous. As shown above it can either be seen as fertile bedrock out of which insightful scholarship can emerge on the other hand it can be seen as yet another process of orientalism. However, the actual picture emerges only when both these aspects are projected together and it is this projection that makes it different from being yet another field where politics of orientalism can be played out. Constructing the region of South Asia in this light and moving beyond the above discussed dichotomies and following the methodologies presented by Tellis and Loomba of paying attention to all different complexities can help us understand this field in all its complexities and even bring out something productive and valuable out of it. ***

Bibliography: Tellis, Ashley. "Ethics, Human Rights, and the LGBT discourse in India. Applied Ethics and Human Rights (2010): 151. Loomba, Ania, and Ritty A. Lukose, Introduction. South Asian Feminisms. Duke University Press, 2012. Hossain, Adnan. "Beyond Emasculation: Being Muslim and Becoming Hijra in South Asia." Asian Studies Review 36.4 (2012): 495-513. Uma Charavarty. Archiving the nation-state in feminist praxis: A South Asian Perspective (2009).