Abstract
The year 2022 marks the completion of 63 years in exile for the Tibetan community. Since 1959, when the Government of India first provided asylum to the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso; and the Tibetan community, the role of India has changed from a temporary abode to a point of reference for the community spread across India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Western countries. The dispersion of the community across the globe with varied and in a few instances, multiple identification agencies have presented academia with a question of the appropriateness of usage of terms 'diaspora' and 'refugee' as homogeneous semantic categories with regard to the community. It is, in this context, that the paper attempts to explore the overlapping boundaries and interrogates the suitability of these terms for the Tibetan exile community. The paper states that the usage of the term 'diaspora' is an outcome of the movement of Tibetans from South Asia, particularly India, to the West thereby making an argument that the usage of the terms 'refugee' and 'diaspora' goes beyond the semantic categorisation and is also connected to the question of Tibetan identity. This has been argued based on a discussion on four parameters namely, the legal status of Tibetans, their relationship to homeland, the dream of going to the West and the Tibetans living in India as the harbinger of a homogeneous national Tibetan identity.
References
1. Anand, Dibyesh. Tibet:A Victim of Geopolitics. New Delhi: Routledge, 2009.
2. Anne Sophie Bentz. ‘Being a Tibetan refugee in India,’ Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31, no.1 (February 2012):80-107, https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdr016.
3. Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: an introduction. London: Routledge, 2008.
4. Choedup, Namgyal, "From Tibetan Refugees to Transmigrants: Negotiating Cultural Continuity and Economic Mobility Through Migration" (2015). Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 643.
5. Fionna McConnell. ‘A State within a State? Exploring Relation between the Indian state and the Tibetan Community and government-in-exile,’ Contemporary South Asia, 19, no.3 (Septembers 2011): 297-313, https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2011.594160.
6. Ghosh, Partha. Migrants, Refugees, and the Stateless in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd., 2016.
7. Javeed Ahmad. ‘Tibetan Diaspora in India: Longing and Belonging,’ The Tibet Journal, 37, no.4, (Winter 2012): 35-44, https://www.jstor.org/stable/tibetjournal.37.4.3.
8. James Clifford. ‘Diasporas,’ Cultural Anthropology, 9, no.3 (August, 1994): 302-338, http://www.jstor.org/stable/656365.
9. Jessica Falcone, and Tsering Wangchuk. ‘"We're not Home": Tibetan Refugees in India in the Twenty-First Century,’ India Review. 7, no. 3 (August 2008): 164-199, https://doi.org/10.1080/14736480802261459.
10. Madhura Balasubramaniam, and Sonika Gupta. ‘Disciplining Statelessness: Fragmentary Outcomes of the Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy of India,’ Asian Studies Review. 46, no. 1 (June 2021): 74-92, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2021.1931030.
11. Malkki, Liisa H. ‘Refugees and Exile: From ‘Refugee Studies’ to the National Order of Things.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995): 495–523. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155947.
12. Hall, Stuart. ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora,’ Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, edited by Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.
13. Timulak, Ladislav. “Qualitative Meta-Analysis,” in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, edited by Uwe Flick, 481-495. London: Sage, 2014.
14. Vertovec, Steven, and Cohen, Robin. Migration, Diasporas, and Transnationalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1999.
William Safran. ‘Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return,’ Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational studies. 1, no.1 (Spring, 1991):83-99, https://doi.org/10.1353/dsp.1991.0004.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 JASSSR
