The 19th All India Conference of Chinese Studies (AICCS) commenced on October 28 at Nagaland University, Lumami, marking the conference’s farthest geographic reach in India to date. Jointly organised by the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), New Delhi, and the Department of Political Science, Nagaland University, the three-day conference from October 28 to 30 brought together scholars, researchers, and practitioners to examine contemporary China, India-China relations, and the future of China Studies in India.
The inaugural session, chaired by Prof John Sema, began with a welcome address by Prof Dasarathi Bhuiyan. Prof Alka Acharya, Director of ICS, highlighted the significance of the partnership in expanding research on China and East Asia across North-Eastern India.
Lt. Col Amardeep Singh Multani, representing the Ministry of External Affairs, observed that diplomacy must continue even amid strategic competition. Nagaland University Chancellor, Dr Samudra Gupta Kashyap underscored the need to integrate China Studies into local academic discourse, given the region’s shared boundary and strategic location.
Delivering the keynote address, “Cartographies of the Cloud: New Maps, Old Dilemmas for the Global South,” Prof. Nimmi Kurian argued that Artificial Intelligence has a material foundation in resource extraction, water use, land, and physical labour. She drew attention to the impact of global AI supply chains on regions such as the Naga Hills, positioning North-East India within wider debates on technology, development, and environmental justice.
Dr Deepak Kumar Bhaskar proposed the vote of thanks.
The Special Panel I, “Current Discourses in Chinese Studies,” was held in the Conference Hall of the Department of Political Science. Chaired by Prof Sabaree Mitra of Jawaharlal Nehru University and Honorary Fellow, ICS, the panel examined the institutional, linguistic, and epistemic challenges facing China Studies in India.
Samuel Sangtam, Research Scholar at Nagaland University, argued that India’s ability to produce independent knowledge about China is constrained by language barriers, weak research infrastructure, geopolitical pressures, and dependence on policy-driven agendas.
He called for “epistemic sovereignty” through native theoretical frameworks rooted in India’s historical, political, and developmental contexts, supported by Mandarin training, doctoral fellowships, and stronger academic publishing.
Nishit Kumar, Assistant Professor at Chanakya University, Bengaluru, traced the evolution of China Studies in India from an early focus on civilisation, language, and Buddhism (1928–1962), through security-centred research after 1962, to economic engagement after 1991 and the post-2017 emphasis on technology, security, and supply chains. He recommended a national consortium of universities and research bodies, dedicated faculty positions, improved archival access, and the use of AI for translation support—while stressing that human expertise remains irreplaceable.
Prashant Kaushik of Central University of Gujarat examined Chinese language education through the lens of the National Education Policy 2020. Using oral history, archival research, and interviews, he argued that the field requires stronger institutional integration, systematic research methods, and deeper archival investigation rather than merely new institutions.
Shanky Chandra of Doon University highlighted the absence of a clear national policy for Chinese language teaching and warned that uneven implementation of NEP 2020 could widen inequalities between metropolitan and regional institutions. He recommended a coherent national policy, standardised quality control, and sustained institutional support.
Snehal Ajit Ulman of Sikkim University focused on North-East India, noting the acute shortage of Chinese language programmes and qualified faculty despite the region’s strategic location. She advocated dedicated courses, faculty development, sustained funding, and multidisciplinary training to establish the North-East as a key hub for China Studies. In the closing discussion, Prof. Mitra emphasised that, despite AI’s growing influence, soft skills and human scholarship cannot be replaced.
The Thematic Panel I, “China’s Political Economy: Environment, Energy and Regional Development,” was chaired by Prof. Akhil Ranjan Dutta of Gauhati University. Speakers examined China’s energy transition, digital governance, borderland development, and the environmental costs of technological expansion.
Prachi Aggarwal of the University of Delhi analysed China’s energy strategy under Xi Jinping, describing a gradual rather than immediate transition away from fossil fuels. She noted that coal remains central because of local government and industrial dependence, while electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels are emerging as key sectors in China’s cleaner-energy strategy.
Saumya Soni of Jawaharlal Nehru University presented research on Zhejiang Province’s shift from the market-driven “Wenzhou Model” to technology-led digital governance, exemplified by Hangzhou’s “City Brain” initiative. She argued that AI and big data improve public services but do not replace local institutions, community networks, and human verification. Her paper also flagged concerns over surveillance, data privacy, and performance-driven governance.
Download Nagaland Tribune app on Google Play
Mallika Bora of the University of Delhi critiqued the political economy of ethnic textile and handicraft industries in Yunnan. Applying Samir Amin’s framework of unequal development, she argued that tourism, poverty-alleviation programmes, and global market expansion can commodify ethnic culture while reinforcing class, ethnic, and gender hierarchies. She cautioned that market visibility should not be mistaken for structural emancipation.
Ana Sinha of FORE School of Management examined water stress, carbon-transition risk, and governance gaps in India–China semiconductor and AI infrastructure investment. Identifying Dholera and Jewar in India, and Tianjin, Xi’an, and the Yangtze Delta in China, as high-risk zones, she argued that technological sovereignty is impossible without environmental sustainability, responsible water management, and stronger impact assessment.
The Thematic Panel II, “State, Society and Governance in Contemporary China,” was chaired by Prof. Sreemati Chakrabarti, Chairperson of ICS. Setting the context, Prof. Chakrabarti said China’s recent development must be understood in relation to the reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, which generated rapid growth, new economic zones, a rising middle class, and major social transformations—alongside regional disparities and social tensions.
Prabir Kumar Talukdar of the University of Delhi presented on Tang Ping (“lying flat”), arguing that the withdrawal of many Chinese youth from intense competition reflects declining trust in fairness and upward mobility rather than laziness. He noted that educational pressure, precarious employment, and inequality have weakened the belief that individual effort guarantees advancement, while the state has responded through censorship and moral framing.
Bidisha Seth of Visva-Bharati University analysed the contradictions between China’s official state feminism and its restrictions on autonomous feminist activism. Referring to the 2025 Global Leaders’ Meeting on Women, she argued that genuine gender equality requires independent agency, decision-making authority, and the freedom to organise—not official declarations alone.
Rityusha Mani Tiwary and Saima Iqbal of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College presented a comparative gendered political economy of women’s movements in China and India. They contrasted China’s state-led feminism within limited autonomous space with India’s more open but fragmented democratic and market environment. The panel concluded that development models must be re-evaluated to centre young people’s lived realities and foster independent feminist spaces.
