"south asia" is a british colonial phrase used to describe the lands that the british ruled and referred to as "the british raj".
No, you're are completely wrong.
There exists extreme laziness, on both sides with regards to use of names, especially "India". I have also seen it in this thread, but since i am not in mood to get involved right now, I have kept quiet.
The actual British created phrase is "India". In the modern sense They literally created it.
The use and interpretation of the name India is extremely redundant. At it's core, it was used 2000 years ago within a certain context by outsiders to define a territory for Their own understanding. It had no basis in reality, except a very narrow definition largely relegated to the Punjab and Sindh, not even the Indus, a mere satrapy of the Persians. Even then, it's pronunciation was different.
2000 years later, the British created a colony by conquering a region, South Asia, it took them nearly 100 years, and decided to call it India. It is literally a British creation.
In the preceding 2000 years, the Europeans had used the name India loosely, for their own understanding, not because there was an actual India which existed in South Asia.
Please don't get hung up on a name, because when it starts creating confusion or falsehoods, it has lost it's meaning. A name should have a clear definition, without confusion.
Have you been gay any time this week?
100% sure you were gay numerous times in the previous week. If you said no, i would call you a Liar.
The meaning of Gay was to be happy and joyful.
Right now, it means homosexual.
Once a word loses it's meaning, it's time to stop using it loosely. Words are used in reference to the times in which we live. Otherwise you create falsehoods.
Next time you're feeling extremely happy, tell your parents or your wife that your feeling extremely Gay. Then spend few hours explaining the original meaning and the modern interpretations.
You will not dare use that word, because the meaning has changed. The name logic applies with regards to India, Indian subcontinent and South Asia.
When India came into being in 1947, with it's defined borders, all other words which contained the word Indian needed to be and should have been reevaluated. Sometimes it is not possible for various reasons, but also because the use of that term does not imply falsehoods.
Indian ocean does not mean it is India's ocean, it is merely a term.
But Indian subcontinent implies a false unitary existence, it links it directly to the Indian state created in 1947. It robs other countries including Pakistan of their own history. You're doing exactly the opposite of what you want to achieve.
Most people don't care about the arguments being discussed in this thread, or anything else. They use a name and with that name is attached a simple easy to understand meaning. That's how life works.
Life works in easy to understand definitions, anything which is repeated becomes easy. It is important to define things in easy terms because Everyday statements and references are attached to those simple definitions.
When you use the term Indian subcontinent, it creates an Indian meaning.
When you use the term South Asia, it creates a neutral meaning, allowing each country to claim their own history within their borders.
Both terms/names were created by humans, neither is inherently more valuable then the other, the value is held by the meaning they convey.
So, while you can discuss what India meant to the Greeks, or what it meant to Tom Dick or Harry, it matters for nought.
Because when you use the word India or Indian, to over 90% of the people they associate that word with the country created in 1947. To them your history is Indian history, no matter how many justifications you present, how many arguments you win, no matter how brilliantly you are applauded for having a solid argument. You will always lose.
To over 90% of people, including your own people, you shall remain the word you decide to use. Which in this case is the lazy, ignorant and habitual use of the term "Indian" as a suffix or a prefix, or as a stand alone term pre 1947.
When you have to over explain a name, justify as to why it existed, that name has lost its meaning. You have lost all your arguments. Therefore, use names which need no explanation, which carry simple clear cut meanings.
With regards to this region, it's South Asia. Subcontinent means it's Indian and India's, but you're free to spend an hour explaining afterwards why it's not Indian.
Why explain when you can just choose to use the correct term in the first place. Like you wouldn't tell your parents you're feeling extremely gay today.
Personally i hate the term Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian, because it creates other falsehoods. There's still enough time to change that definition, but that's another discussion, plus it's largely a state led effort.
South Asia is a descriptive term.
Indian subcontinent is a descriptive term.
India is a descriptive term.
They were all created by someone, one does not hold greater value over then other, the only value they have is the meaning attached to each of them.
Subcontinent is a geological term, tectonic plates, that's it, nothing more. That's a fact.
United Nations has defined names for all regions of the world, South Asia is a region. It is the only internationally recognised legal name for this region.
It's a geographical and a geopolitical term. It's a real life term.
I cannot remember the exact reference but the earliest recorded use of the term South Asia is actually in Persian. I heard this from a Pakistani author in a book launch discussion. It is not a recent term, it's about as old as usage of subcontinent, possibly older, but i have already written enough and it's not directly relevant to my argument.
India has various definitions depending on how it is used and in which point in time. It's a meaningless term. In modern times, India is a country created in 1947, that's it. That's a fact.
Learn to use correct and appropriate terms, otherwise you'll continue to shoot yourself in the foot.
Exonyms are nothing unusual, people have used terms to describe others throughout history, it doesn't mean it is an actual reality. The Arabs referred to Europeans as Franks. Are all Europeans Franks or do they have an actual reality of their own.
Likewise Europeans used to refer to Muslims as Saracens. Are all Muslims Saracens or do they have an actual reality of their own.
Correct use of correct Words matters.
