https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3815-6575
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Tibetan settlements in India house the largest population of Tibetan exiles and are crucial repositories of Tibetan culture and nationalism in the political struggle for Tibet. The settlements privilege the moral narrative of statelessness as an integral part of the Tibetan struggle. However, given the precarity of land tenure, these settlements are steadily hollowing out, with an increasing number of Tibetans choosing to migrate out of India. In response, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and the Indian government have jointly framed the Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) to consolidate the Tibetan population in India. The TRP functions as a disciplinary regime that is delivered through a centralised process for creating secure land tenure for Tibetan settlements, and aims to retain the Tibetans as a stateless population in India. Using three case studies of Tibetan settlements across India, we demonstrate that Tibetans are resisting this moral injunction of statelessness by opting out of the disciplinary logic of the TRP. This resistance includes processes of outmigration and pursuing citizen-like claims in India. These forms of resistance reflect the fragmentation within the exile community over the political value of statelessness, with many Tibetans exploring new ways to imagine their struggle as rooted in citizenship claims.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Tenzing Londe for his research assistance. We are most grateful to Tsering Shakya and Sudhir Chella Rajan for their comments on an early draft of the paper. Thanks are also due to the two anonymous reviewers from the journal.
Notes
1. For a review of the documentary on the art installation, highlighting the significance of recovering the sacred homeland Tibet, see Norbu (Citation2015).
2. Representative literature on how different communities negotiate statelessness and refugeehood include Bentz and Goreau-Ponceaud (Citation2019), Cox and Connell (Citation2003), Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (Citation2016) and Malkki (Citation1995).
3. For a detailed account of Kalimpong and its significance, see Harris (Citation2013).
4. For detailed transcriptions of Parliamentary proceedings on this issue, see Nehru (Citation1959/Citation2013, pp. 455–459).
5. For a full list of Tibetan settlements, see Department of Home, CTA (n.d.).
6. For a detailed report on the Phuntsokling land case, see Department of Home, CTA (Citation2013).
7. Benami refers to those transactions where the property is paid for by one person but is registered in the name of another person. The property is held by the latter for the future benefit of the person who made the payment. This is considered illegal under Indian law.
8. The scope for resistance in Foucault’s conception of power has been the focus of scholarly debate and interpretation, and these arguments can be located on a continuum. Some scholars argue that there is little room for articulation of resistance within Foucault’s conceptualisation of power. These include Fraser (Citation1981) and Taylor (Citation1984). For analysis and critique of these arguments, see Heller (Citation1996) and Muckelbauer (Citation2000). Other accounts, including Pickett (Citation1996), argue that resistance is limitless and unrestrained by consequence.
9. At the time of writing, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Haryana had adopted the TRP.
10. “If the land or any portion of land is required for any public purpose or for any administrative purpose, the Lessor shall, at the expiry of a notice of fifteen days to that effect that the said land is required for such purpose, be at the liberty to take possession of the land with structure” (Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighters and Rehabilitation Division, Citation2014, p. 12).