(TibetanReview.net, Jun23’26) – China claims that Tibet has been an integral part of it since ancient times and the Tibetan culture in all its aspects – religion, medicine, performing arts, and so forth – are parts or aspects of Chinese culture. And while none of this is true, the Party-state expects its brand of ‘Tibetologists’ to come up with “research” works to “prove” all this to be true. This was the focus of a symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the China Tibetology Research Center held in Beijing on Jun 2.
The symposium called on Chinese academics specialising in Tibet to find more “creative” ways to shape the global conversation about the region while remaining strictly aligned with the Communist Party’s ideology, noted the scmp.com Jun 4, citing Li Ganjie, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and head of the CPC Central Committee’s United Front Work Department.
Li has said Tibetan studies was vital in “enhancing China’s international discourse power on Tibet-related matters”, and called on Tibetologists to “strengthen theoretical guidance” and improve “strategic awareness”.
The centre is China’s biggest institution for Tibetan studies and Li’s department oversees the party’s external influence efforts as well as religion and ethnic affairs within China, the report noted.
At the opening ceremony of the symposium, Li said the center has played a leading role in Tibetan studies since its founding 40 years ago. It has united scholars in the field and enriched work related to Xizang in the country, building an independent Chinese knowledge system for Tibetan studies, strengthening academic communication and improving the research landscape, reported China’s official global.chinadaily.com.cn/ Jun 4, using the Sinicized name “Xizang” for Tibet.
He has said Tibetan studies had gained importance as “Xizang” and Tibetan-inhabited areas in the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai were at a key stage of pursuing high-quality development and achieving long-term stability. He has called for “deeper theoretical work, greater strategic awareness, improved international communication, better integration of research resources and stronger talent development”.
Unlike the independent and all-round focus and approach of Tibetologists in the outside world, Zhao Rui, vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has said Tibetan studies and the development of national high-level think tanks on “Xizang”-related issues should treat the forging of a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation as their foundation. He has called for a new research paradigm for Tibetan studies in the new era and for greater efforts to improve international “understanding” of “Xizang” through academic research.
The report cited speakers at the symposium as saying Tibetan studies should not be confined to academic research; it should instead provide intellectual support for governance, development, ecological protection and border-area stability. They have also emphasized the need to improve the translation of research findings into policy advice and international communication.
Apparently unhappy with the independent Tibetological studies and research outputs taking place in the outside world, the report cited several scholars at the symposium as saying building an independent Chinese knowledge system for Tibetan studies was central to the field’s future development. They have called for stronger interdisciplinary and cross-regional research, deeper study of historical documents, and more attention to real issues concerning “Xizang’s” development and governance.
But creating a false narrative and gaining universal recognition for it is no easy task and Hu Yan, a professor at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, has said “misunderstandings and bias in the West on Xizang-related issues cannot be overcome overnight, and that long-term academic work is needed to clarify facts and improve global understanding.”
Other speakers at the symposium were stated to have highlighted the center’s major academic achievements, such as the publication of the Tibetan-language collated edition of the Chinese Tripitaka, A General History of Xizang and the Tibetan-language volume of The Chinese Encyclopedia. They have said these works had laid an important foundation for building a Chinese system of knowledge in Tibetan studies.
The symposium was reported to have been attended by more than 100 officials, scholars and representatives from central departments, “Xizang”, Tibetan-inhabited areas, universities, research institutions and media organizations.
An immediate task for the Chinese Tibetologists is to ‘prove’ somehow that Beijing has the absolute right to appoint the reincarnation of the present Dalai Lama by using the centre’s 13-volume General History of Tibet and so forth.
Since Dec 2023, China decided to use the term “Xizang”, rather than “Tibet” in its official publications after a white paper on Tibet was released by China’s cabinet, the State Council, in Nov 2023.
To justify the change, Chinese Tibetologists have argued that “Tibet” is too broad as it can also include parts of Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces, noted the scmp.com report.