This is an important question, and while I am 1000% in favor of recognizing translations as philosophy, and more robust historical work, I have some thoughts on research on philosophers whose language you don't know. A thread. https://twitter.com/philosophybites/status/1360481834627440640

First, what kind of research? Certainly work in history of philosophy (Aristotle argued that X, Dharmakīrti was influenced by Y) needs language work. But what about thinking through philosophical ideas found in translation?

If historical work on a philosopher allows reading multiple translations, a lot of secondary literature, and the thesis is properly narrow in scope (it's clear the argument isn't based on reading primary materials), couldn't I draw on some of Kant's ideas?

In my area, this is difficult, and to do properly likely involves (my second point) collaboration. Even some of the "big names" in Indian philosophy have only a single translation of their work into any given target language, and often the rest of their corpus is untouched.

Kumārila is a case in point: critical editions are just now being made available, for a very small percentage of his three extant works. In English, there is one full translation of two of those, and none of the third.

I wouldn't recommend someone write on what Kumārila thinks about X based on existing literature unless they have Sanskrit abilities or a collaborator. In his case, his major commentators aren't translated but in pieces, but secondary lit often depends on them, so you'd be stuck.

But I would encourage collaboration, where analytically-trained philosophers work on e.g. epistemological questions alongside philosophers with Sanskrit (or those from other disciplines who can think philosophically).

I don't know who the "so many" are that @philosophybites is referring to, or what sort of research they do. So this thread might totally miss the mark. But maybe it has some helpful thoughts.

PS. A further thought: gatekeeping worries. In a time when there's pressure to expand the canon, isn't this requirement too strict? Shouldn't we let people write on Kumārila, Nāgārjuna, etc. even if they don't know Sanskrit?

Some gatekeeping is good. Work that depends only on a paucity of translations in order to represent what a philosopher has said runs the risk of coming to be a standardly cited source, derailing research and misinforming people.

Just because we want more people to work in an area doesn't mean standards should be lowered for research. But I think it does mean those of us wanting others to engage should make our work and ourselves more accessible to people who want to learn and collaborate.