South Asia's nation-state approach to identity has spawned an introverted polity that clips history to suit short-sighted nationalism. It ignores other ethno-linguistic and religious tapestries that define South Asianhood.
With apologies to René Descartes, am I a South Asian? If yes, when did I become one?
Identities, we are told, are not innate to individuals but are socially constructed. If the SAARC region between 60 and 100 meridians south of the Hindukush-Himalaya cordillera can be characterised by anything, it is by its surfeit of identities. Whether in terms of language, ethnicity, fairly racist varna, property-based class, religious rituals, physiographic zones, ecological niches, urban-rural divides, modern political ideology or tradition-ascribed roles, identity abound here as perhaps nowhere else on the globe.
This multiple identity characterises not just the South Asian region or groups of people within this region but also the individual. A simple statement such as "A Nepali is…" cannot be completed with a single noun or an adjective, except by the grossly ignorant. A dweller of this mountain kingdom—or indeed of any other country in South Asia—can be many things at the same time. Which is why attempts to give a single identity to a group through the garb of nationalism have failed miserably everywhere, even when jackboots have been used to assure compliance.