NU Chancellor Dr Samudra Gupta Kashyap.
Kohima, October 30 (MExN): The 19th All India Conference of Chinese Studies (AICCS) was held at Nagaland University (NU) Lumami campus from October 28 to 30. Jointly organised by the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), New Delhi, and the NU Department of Political Science, the three-day conference, is bringing together scholars, researchers and practitioners to examine contemporary China, India-China relations and the future of China Studies in India, stated a press release.
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 said global AI supply chains were affecting regions such as the Naga Hills, placing North-East India within wider debates on technology, development and environmental justice.
ICS Director Prof Alka Acharya said the partnership would help expand research on China and East Asia across the North-East. Lt Col Amardeep Singh Multani, representing the Ministry of External Affairs, said diplomacy must continue even amid strategic competition.
NU Chancellor Dr Samudra Gupta Kashyap stressed the need to integrate China Studies into local academic discourse, given the region’s shared boundary and strategic location.
The inaugural session was chaired by Prof John Sema. Prof Dasarathi Bhuiyan delivered the welcome address, and Dr Deepak Kumar Bhaskar proposed the vote of thanks.
Special panel on discourses
At the Special Panel I, “Current Discourses in Chinese Studies,” chaired by Prof Sabaree Mitra of Jawaharlal Nehru University, speakers examined the institutional, linguistic and epistemic challenges facing the field in India.
Samuel Sangtam, a research scholar at NU, said India’s ability to produce independent knowledge on China was constrained by language barriers, weak research infrastructure, geopolitical pressures and dependence on policy-driven agendas. He called for “epistemic sovereignty” through native theoretical frameworks, supported by Mandarin training, doctoral fellowships and stronger academic publishing.
Nishit Kumar of Chanakya University, Bengaluru, traced the evolution of China Studies in India from a focus on civilisation, language and Buddhism (1928-1962) to security-centred research after 1962, economic engagement after 1991, and an emphasis on technology, security and supply chains since 2017. He recommended a national consortium of universities and research bodies, dedicated faculty positions, better archival access and the use of AI for translation support, while stressing that human expertise remained irreplaceable.
Prashant Kaushik of the Central University of Gujarat, examining Chinese language education through the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, said the field needed stronger institutional integration, systematic research methods and deeper archival investigation rather than merely new institutions.
Shanky Chandra of Doon University pointed to the absence of a clear national policy for Chinese language teaching and warned that uneven NEP implementation could widen inequalities between metropolitan and regional institutions.
Snehal Ajit Ulman of Sikkim University noted an acute shortage of Chinese language programmes and qualified faculty in the North-East despite its strategic location. She advocated dedicated courses, faculty development, sustained funding and multidisciplinary training to make the region a hub for China Studies.
In the closing discussion, Prof Mitra said that despite AI’s growing influence, soft skills and human scholarship could not be replaced.
Panel on political economy
Thematic Panel I, “China’s Political Economy: Environment, Energy and Regional Development,” chaired by Prof Akhil Ranjan Dutta of Gauhati University, looked at China’s energy transition, digital governance, borderland development and the environmental costs of technological expansion.
Prachi Aggarwal of the University of Delhi said China’s energy strategy under Xi Jinping involved a gradual rather than immediate shift away from fossil fuels, with coal remaining central due to local government and industrial dependence. Electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels, she said, were emerging as key sectors.
Saumya Soni of JNU 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 said AI and big data improved public services but did not replace local institutions, community networks and human verification, and flagged concerns over surveillance, data privacy and performance-driven governance.
Mallika Bora of the University of Delhi, applying Samir Amin’s framework of unequal development, argued that tourism, poverty-alleviation programmes and global market expansion could commodify the ethnic textile and handicraft industries of Yunnan while reinforcing class, ethnic and gender hierarchies. Market visibility, she cautioned, 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 was impossible without environmental sustainability and responsible water management.
Panel on state and society
Thematic Panel II, “State, Society and Governance in Contemporary China,” was chaired by Prof Sreemati Chakrabarti, Chairperson of ICS. She said China’s recent development must be understood in relation to the reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, which brought rapid growth, new economic zones and a rising middle class, alongside regional disparities and social tensions.
Prabir Kumar Talukdar of the University of Delhi, speaking on Tang Ping (“lying flat”), said the withdrawal of many Chinese youth from intense competition reflected declining trust in fairness and upward mobility rather than laziness. He said the state had 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 required independent agency, decision-making authority and the freedom to organise.
Rityusha Mani Tiwary and Saima Iqbal of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College presented a comparative study of women’s movements in China and India, contrasting China’s state-led feminism 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.
