On Saturday 03 Dec 2011 8:20:47 pm Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well, as for south asia, what does saarc stand for, pray?
No need to pray and bring religion into the picture. Let us be secular here LOL! Are you implying that the Portuguese had some dealings with with SAARC in the 17th century that enabled them to export slaves as outsourced from South Asia? That would be hilarous. What is South Asia without Pakistan and Bangladesh? Where were Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 17th century? What is "South Asia" without Tibet or Myanmar? Who are the members of SAARC? South Asia is a completely idiotic expression that basically seeks to sideline Indian geographical, cultural and economic dominance and make some sort of pretence that the Malidives and Nepal actually matter, and thereby allow the likes of Pakistan to get away and be recognised as a legitimate entity. The name South Asia has been cooked up by a bunch of spineless apologists of the Sarmila Bose/Sagarika Ghose genre in collaboration with the fake liberals of Pakistan and a bunch of stupid and ignorant western historians and "South Asia" scholars. shiv
