Lumami: The 19th All India Conference of Chinese Studies (AICCS) began at Nagaland University on Wednesday, bringing together scholars and researchers to examine contemporary China, India-China relations and the challenges facing China Studies in India.
Jointly organised by the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), New Delhi, and Nagaland University’s Department of Political Science, the three-day conference, being held from October 28 to 30, marks the event’s farthest geographical reach in India to date.
The inaugural session highlighted the importance of strengthening research on China and East Asia, particularly in the Northeast, given the region’s strategic location and shared boundary with China.
ICS Director Alka Acharya emphasised the significance of the partnership in expanding China Studies across the Northeast. Lt Col Amardeep Singh Multani, representing the Ministry of External Affairs, said diplomacy must continue despite strategic competition.
Nagaland University Chancellor Samudra Gupta Kashyap underscored the need to integrate China Studies into the region’s academic discourse.
Delivering the keynote address, titled Cartographies of the Cloud: New Maps, Old Dilemmas for the Global South, Nimmi Kurian highlighted the environmental and material costs of artificial intelligence (AI), including resource extraction, water consumption, land use and physical labour.
She drew attention to the implications of global AI supply chains for regions such as the Naga Hills, placing Northeast India within broader debates on technology, development and environmental justice.
The conference’s first special panel, titled Current Discourses in Chinese Studies, examined institutional, linguistic and academic challenges affecting the study of China in India.
Samuel Sangtam, a research scholar at Nagaland University, argued that India’s ability to develop independent knowledge of China was constrained by language barriers, inadequate research infrastructure, geopolitical pressures and dependence on policy-driven agendas.
He called for greater academic independence through theoretical frameworks rooted in India’s historical and political contexts, alongside expanded 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 its early focus on civilisation, language and Buddhism between 1928 and 1962 to security-oriented research following the 1962 India-China war. He also discussed the growing emphasis on economic engagement after 1991 and the subsequent focus on technology, security and supply chains.
Kumar proposed a national consortium of universities and research institutions, dedicated faculty positions, improved archival access and the use of AI to support translation, while stressing that human expertise remained indispensable.
Other speakers highlighted gaps in Chinese language education and the need for a coherent national policy. Prashant Kaushik of Central University of Gujarat called for stronger institutional integration and systematic research, while Shanky Chandra of Doon University warned that uneven implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 could widen disparities between metropolitan and regional institutions.
Snehal Ajit Ulman of Sikkim University drew attention to the shortage of Chinese language programmes and qualified faculty in Northeast India, calling for dedicated courses, sustained funding and multidisciplinary training to establish the region as a centre for China Studies.
Panel chair Sabaree Mitra of Jawaharlal Nehru University and an honorary fellow of ICS stressed that soft skills and human scholarship could not be replaced by AI.
Thematic discussions examined China’s political economy, environmental sustainability, energy transition and governance.
During a panel on China’s Political Economy: Environment, Energy and Regional Development, Prachi Aggarwal of the University of Delhi discussed China’s gradual transition towards cleaner energy under President Xi Jinping. She noted that coal continued to play a central role because of industrial and local government dependence, even as electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels gained prominence.
Saumya Soni of Jawaharlal Nehru University examined the use of AI and big data in local governance in Zhejiang province, focusing on Hangzhou’s City Brain initiative. While such technologies could improve public services, she argued, they could not replace local institutions and community networks. She also flagged concerns over surveillance, data privacy and performance-driven governance.
Mallika Bora of the University of Delhi examined the political economy of ethnic textiles and handicrafts in Yunnan, arguing that tourism, poverty alleviation programmes and global market expansion could commercialise ethnic culture while reinforcing class, ethnic and gender inequalities.
Ana Sinha of FORE School of Management discussed water stress, carbon-transition risks and governance gaps associated with semiconductor and AI infrastructure investments in India and China. She argued that technological sovereignty required environmental sustainability, responsible water management and stronger impact assessments.
A separate thematic panel, State, Society and Governance in Contemporary China, explored social change, youth aspirations and gender politics.
Panel chair Sreemati Chakrabarti, chairperson of ICS, said China’s contemporary development needed to be understood against the reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, which brought rapid economic growth, new economic zones and an expanding middle class, alongside regional disparities and social tensions.
Prabir Kumar Talukdar of the University of Delhi examined Tang Ping, or the trend of “lying flat” among Chinese youth. He argued that the phenomenon reflected declining confidence in social mobility and fairness rather than laziness, citing educational pressure, precarious employment and inequality.
Bidisha Seth of Visva-Bharati University examined the tensions between China’s official commitment to gender equality and restrictions on independent feminist activism. She argued that meaningful equality required autonomy, decision-making power and the freedom to organise beyond official declarations.
Rityusha Mani Tiwary and Saima Iqbal of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College presented a comparative analysis of women’s movements in China and India, highlighting differences between China’s state-led approach to feminism and India’s more open but fragmented democratic and market environment.
The discussions called for greater attention to young people’s lived experiences, independent feminist spaces and the social consequences of different development models.
Also Read: Editorial: Which version of ‘Save Indian Democracy’ will save Manipur?