Association of Asia Scholars (AAS), along with Taiwan National Universtiy (TNU) launched a project, titled as a "China Studies in India" on 6th March 2008. This project is aimed at understanding the evolution of China Studies and its greater disciplinary concerns in India. Dr Swaran Singh and Dr Reena Marwah on behalf of AAS have agreed to facilitate this project in India. To mark the beginning of this project, the AAS conducted the one-day brain-storming workshop in India Habitat Center to deliberate on various dimension of this project. This project also has support of the Center for China Studies Abroad, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

The participants to the Workshop included Prof He Pei Zhong (Secretary General, China Studies Overseas, CASS, Beijing), Prof Shih Chih-yu (Department of Political Science, Taiwan National University, Taipei, Taiwan), Prof Manoranjan Mohanty (former Director, Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi), Prof Patricia Uberoi (Director, Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi), Dr E Sridharan (Executive Director, UPIASI, New Delhi), Dr Swaran Singh, Dr B R Deepak, Dr Srikanth Kondapalli, Dr Varaprasad Sekhar, Dr Sharad Soni (from JNU) and Dr Ritu Agarwal (from Delhi University). Given their other engagements, Dr Uttara Sahastrabuddhe (Mumbai) and Dr Anurag Vishwanatha (Banglore) could not attend this Workshop but have agreed to be part of this project. Together the discussion evolved a list of about 55 names of 'senior' China experts in India who will be interviewed by this team. The afternoon session had two presentations (by Prof Manoranjan Mohanty and Prof Patricia Uberoi) on China Studies in India.

Dr Reena Marwah opened the Workshop with her brief welcome remarks and by highlighting how AAS objectives, of developing Asian perspectives, make it an ideal partner in this project on China Studies in India.

Prof Shih Chih-yu, of TNU, began by highlighting how China's often lends itself to hyperbole. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has the largest population in the world, the fastest growing economy in the world, the largest army in the world, the largest middle class in the world, a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, a manned space programme, a nuclear arsenal, and so on. But analysts, commentators and policymakers have yet to decide just how to understand China. He argued that the knowledge on China in western universities is mostly generating out of their culture and it is a reflection of their historical interaction with China. However, besides this prevailing western scholarship on China, there are other perspectives and studies from countries neighbouring China. To understand these perspectives involves reaching out to academic communities so as to trace the evolution of knowledge on China in that particular country.

He underlined the fact that there continues to exist a significant difference between how West views China and how various neighboring countries view China. To reconcile these differences of perceptions, these countries have to redefine their role to reconceptualize understanding on China, which will universalize the knowledge on China, rather to remain confined to a western thinking. This makes it imperative to study why, how and what factors led to a development of that perspective in the country. In most of these countries western scholarship is not only dominating but also is demanding which prevents the healthy academic atmosphere to flourish the alternative thinking on China.

Prof Shih has been undertaking these studies across Asia with its chief objective being one of to communicate to record all Asia scholars' perceptions and their personal experiences in study of China Studies. He also explained how this project began with Japan where around 3000 scholars are known to have studies China over last 150 years. This project has scine moved to Singapore, Korea and Vietnam. The current new destinations are India and from India it is expected to move to Australia. From there, he is contemplating it to take it further to Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Prof He Pei Zhong, Associate Director and Secretary General of the Center for China Studies Abroad, CASS (Beijing) argued how rising China has this urgent need to focus on its mirror-image to stay on course. China studies overseas, he said, provide an ideal medium to achieve these objectives. Highlighting Chinese traditions in this exercise, he highlighted how Chinese scholars have been traveling to India since antiquity to study the most fascinating dimensions of Indian society. Indian Buddhism is an intrinsic part of China since First Century. Buddhism has a profound impact on Chinese behaviour patterns. I travelled to India especially to know the Indian perception of China. Chinese academy of Social Sciences is a pioneer institute and its overseas China Studies Overseas that began in 1975 has been collecting the information on overseas perspectives on China.

Dr Swaran Singh in his brief remarks stated that the project is of substantial interest to all the AAS fellows and all are looking forward it as their personal academic aspiration. The largest numbers of Asia Fellows have been going to China for their fellowship which highlights AAS interest in China. It also fits into need of this project to bridge the gap between western academia and the Asian perspectives. This project will further strengthen the AAS's objective of Asianising Asia. Thus contributions of Asia Scholars remain extremely important. He also outlined some challenges that can be faced in the accomplishment of this project. He argued that in a vast country like India reaching out to the scholars of China studies in all parts of India and in various disciplines will provide a real challenge to methodologies and skills of interviewers. The Interviewee was defined by him as one as having spent at least two decades focusing on China and now in position to 'reflect' and 'contemplate' though the interviews will be a free flowing reminiscences and a self-reflecting story making interviewee completely free to comment on the critical issues and themes in his narrative on China Studies in India.

This Morning Session was followed by the lunch. The Afternoon Session was themed on "China Studies in India" with two senior China scholars, Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty and Prof. Patricia Uberoi, making formal presentations dealing with the evolution and present state of China studies in India.

Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty narrated the historical evolution of "China studies In India". He explained the evolution in four phases.

The First Phase, he said, had witnessed two major initiatives. The first was the Shantiniketan movement from 1934 - which had humanism and rationalism as its underpinning - and the second being the Indian school of International studies [ISIS] movement that was started by Jawaharlal Nehru with the help of people like Professor Kunzru and Appadorai, aimed at strengthening the study the world affairs from Indian perspective. The ISIS movement in 1968 became an integral element of JNU and SIS. Secondly, this first movement also witnessed two extremely important developments. The Shantiniketan movement had emphasized on the language and classical studies. Analysis of Buddhist texts, India-China cultural exchange group were the important aspects of this movement. Secondly the ISIS movement was aimed at generating an autonomous Asian thinking. Nehru emphasized on the need for a resurgence of Asian nationalism, which was coincided by the Bandung spirit, to further his Panchsheel agenda with China. He also lamented that the legacies of Shantiniketan movement were not inherited and current studies clearly miss that imprint of Classical studies.

The Second Phase witnessed the rise of Delhi University movement during 1960s. The Ford Foundation sponsored it. During the mid 60's Ford Foundation evolved a global strategy to promote China studies. For this purpose a group of scholars was selected from in which renowned scholar Mr. V P Dutt were also copted though a little later. Prof. Mohanty stated the two distinct features of this movement. In this period the focus had shifted to Area Studies. Area studies programme was introduced whose unstated strategy was to study the political culture, economics and foreign policy. Secondly the area studies programme was also to integrate the study on language, literacy, and philosophy but also come closer to China Studies in USA. This has created the kind of a schism in area studies as the focus was in doldrums between language, culture and politics.

The Third Phase was to have China Study Group at its core. This is also known for participation of Indian diplomats. Schoalrs like Prof G.P. Deshpande, Girideshingkar Prof. Mohanty (himself) and others started it in 1969 at Sapru House in New Delhi and this has continued to be active till date. The rationale behind this movement was, to engage the Indian public opinion to generate the debate on China. But this stage also witnessed the decline as that of Shantiniketan movement. He stated the two important features of this movement. This movement was marked by the initiation to address the problem of Discipline vs. Area Studies. Secondly there was an insufficient attempt to bridge the structural gap that existed between China studies and core discipline of political science. It did not receive the much-coveted support, he stated.

The Fourth Phase was to begin with the setting up of the Institute of Chinese studies [ICS] movement which has picked up momentum in the last five years. Prof. Patricia Uberoi and others of the younger generation of scholars are integral to it. Prof. Mohanty explained the two positive and negative things about this movement. He argued that this movement led to an opening up of the countries to each other, which made possible the frequent academic exchanges. This has also created the theoretical intellectual possibilities of greater scope. The other peculiarity was of the new confidence in terms of the knowledge, methodology and theoretical aspects. However the new literature has severe shortcomings in terms of its academic depth, while the literature of Shantiniketan movement is extremely impressive and unfathomable. It is a real cause of concern. Shantiniketan days witnessed the depth. Prof Mohanty was pointing to the evils of Internet revolution in academics.

He underlined how Indian contribution towards China studies have make important contribution to the field of theories of development and social transformation during Mao days, on alternative perspectives in security and peace where Indian scholarship remains one to reckon with. However, Prof. Mohanty said he was confident that the continuity in the contribution from Indian side will make a clear agenda for future.

Prof. Patricia Uberoi began by tracing the history of Indians, studying other countries and experts from other countries being involved in Asian or oriental Studies. She highlighted how when Indian and China were bhai-bhai (brothers) phase, her own country, Australia, did not have good ties with China and soon this trend was to reverse with India-China falling apart while Australia was opening ties with Beijing. She also emphasized various perceptions about lack of interest on the part of Indians studying other regions in world. She attributed this lack of interest to the vast heterogeneity and complexity of the Indian society which made India see itself as the world resulting in the absence of tradition to study other countries.

Prof. Uberoi pointed how sociology, and anthropology in India was founded in the backdrop of Indian Nationalism which also provided it certain orientation. She problamatised the notion of Pan-Asianism, which was at core to the initial stages of Shantiniketan movement, as Indianism expanded. She did not accept it as Pan-Asianism. She feels it was ''Greater Indian chauvinism" as a part of Indian Nationalism which remains major limitation with China Studies in this country.

She then focused her discussion in the context of cold war days. She commended the initiation of an area studies courses in Delhi University and School of International Studies in JNU and UGC commitee for Area Studies have continued to provide avenues for scholarship. She argued that it became a fusion of a western style of oriental Knowledge and Liberal humanism. Prof. Patricia hoped for the humanistic pursuit of scholarship. But the existing dilemmas in language vs. discipline are hard to tackle. She argued that language is an important tool in study of the other societies but is not the only tool and is insufficient. A researcher devoid of any analytical, disciplinary and methodological tools often ends up with "common sensical approach to solve the problems", which does not lead to anywhere. On the other hand a well-trained scholar devoid of language remains inaccessible to important information and scripts. Secondly she expressed her concerns by arguing that most of the work today is the policy driven and has a corporate funding, it essentially lacks necessary academic and moral virtues.

Can there be an Indian view on China? She argued that at least in initial decades India had that advantage of saying that it understood poverty, Cultural Revolution better than their Western counterparts. However, since China opened to Western countries since late 1970s, this distinction no longer is valid. She suggested that the issue of knowledge institutionalization could be addressed through the bilateral governmental participation and exchanges. The increasing facilitation of mutual visits and cultural exchange, facilitation of research at the institutional level is slowly catching the momentum. She expressed the need for the in-depth work in the field of comparative studies and joint research between two parts of Asia to understand each other better than ever before.