Bit disappointed to read Claude Arpi's most recent article on the Daily Guardian on the need to ensure Tibet is not a taboo word. (1/12) https://thedailyguardian.com/time-to-stop-tibet-from-being-a-taboo-word/

Arpi's key argument is Indian scholarship on Tibet was hampered by India's diplomatic concerns of maintaining amicable relations with China & that it was primarily limited to refugee rehabilitation & human rights concerns. He lauds the army's intro to Tibetology program (2/12)

He says: "In March 1959, the Dalai Lama took refuge in India and he was told by the Prime Minister: “No politics on Indian soil!” No question of studying Tibet anymore." (3/12)

Since March 59, Nehru & Subimal Dutt began exchanging letters to seriously explore Kushok Bakula Rinpoche's idea of setting up a Tibetan college in Leh. In May, Nehru proposed that some lamas who'd recently arrived from Tibet could be sent to this institution (4/12)

On June 6, in another conv with Dutt reg a letter from a Cong MP, Nehru suggests that the feasibility of setting up an Institute of Tibetan Culture be explored & asks that this idea be discussed with HHDL. All letters are included in Nehru's Selected Works (Vol 49) (5/12)

Find it surprising that Arpi doesn't mention these initiatives, let alone engage with them in a substantive manner and instead suggests that the govt's decision of preventing HHDL from engaging in "politics on Indian soil" translated into a total blockade on studying Tibet (6/12)

2nd he says "The first one is that there is a dearth of scholarship on the subject due to the ‘black-out’ put in place by India’s diplomacy. Nobody has been encouraged to study Tibet and the Himalaya, other than on the question of refugees’ rehabilitation or human rights." (7/12)

A quick search on a database like JStor or a scan of index of a journal like the Tibet Journal reflects that a lot of Indian scholarship on Tibet has predominantly focused on Tibet in Sino-Indian relations or specific aspects of Tibetan Buddhism (8/12)

As someone exploring Tibetan rehabilitation, am often stunned by the limited amt of research by Indian academics. Notable exceptions inc Girija Saklani, T. Palakshappa, & most recently Sudeep Basu. Most work focuses more on specific settlement rather than policies (9/12)

If anything, we need greater curiosity abt & more work on Tibetan rehabilitation, the historical context to the current govt policies, more explorations of settlement histories, negotiations over land tenure, relations w local Indian communities etc. (10/12)

FWIW I agree with Arpi on the need for serious, multidisciplinary research on Tibet and the Himalayan Borderlands & his point reg the link b/w Tibet & Himalayan studies is important to engage with. There is much to be gained from a borderlands perspective. (11/12)

But not convinced that engagement should be driven by strategic concerns as with army's Tibetology prog. As @_SonikaGupta_ argued @ the AICCS conf: "Securitization of academic research leads to path dependent dead-ends". Couldnt agree more & it's something to watch out for(12/12)