Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilIssues64Conference reportsThe erasure of ‘Tibet’ from the K...

Conference reports

The erasure of ‘Tibet’ from the Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival

L’effacement du ‘Tibet’ au Festival du Film de Montagne de Kathmandou
Manju von Rospatt

Texte intégral

  • 1 I’m indebted to several people who helped me think through and revise this article. I’m grate (...)

1This year’s Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival (KIMFF) – Nepal’s longest-running and largest film festival – held between 28 May and 1 June 2025, boasted the themes ‘Fractured Voices’ and ‘Reclaiming Narratives’.1 Yet one particular sequence stood in stark contrast to these themes: the Xizang Panorama, a curated collection of Chinese state-aligned films about Tibet (referred to in China as Xizang). Since its launch in the year 2000, the KIMFF has positioned itself as a platform for social justice, with particular emphasis on mountain communities. The KIMFF has screened hundreds of films – from anthropological narratives and feature films to animated films. Festival programming over the years has featured issues such as the impact of climate change on fragile ecologies, gender, political resilience of mountain communities and tourism. This year’s line-up featured a wide range of films, including documentaries on cultural preservation in remote Himalayan regions, wilderness explorations and stories highlighting the lives of marginalised communities in South Asia.

2This year’s festival notably included the first official participation of a Chinese delegation with the special sequence entitled Xizang Panorama. The selection was curated by the Pan-Himalayan Communications Research Centre (PHCRC), an academic institution jointly established by the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China in Sichuan and Kathmandu University’s School of Arts’ Department of Languages and Mass Communication. According to its website, this initiative forms part of a ‘Belt and Road Initiative for academic exchange and media cooperation among countries in the region’, underscoring Xizang Panorama’s role in China’s broader regional strategy. This collection of films about Tibet was created almost entirely by Han Chinese film-makers. Many of these films, narrated entirely in English and promoting a view of Tibet in line with Beijing’s geopolitical interests, clearly serve to legitimise China’s narrative on Tibet on the international scene. It is worthwhile noting that outside of the Xizang Panorama no films about Tibet or made by independent Tibetan creative film-makers were shown at the festival.

3The six films in the Xizang Panorama include Snow Leopards and Friends by Zhinong Xi, Life of Buda by Jian Lu, Where the Mighty Rivers Begin by Qin Qing, Youthful Xizang by Shiping Shen, Wild Wonders in Xizang by Dazhen, and Days and Nights in Xizang by Yiyan Lu. Among the producers and directors of these films, only one is Tibetan, a film-maker who goes by the Sinicised name Dazhen, though her nationality is not mentioned in the festival programme, whereas her counterparts are all listed as Chinese. The Panorama pieces together sequences from the six films into one screening, with transitions that often came across as abrupt and incongruous. In fact, I have not watched these films in their entirety and can only rely on my experience of watching the Panorama.

4Of the six films adapted for the Panorama, three focus on Tibet’s wildlife and landscape. The most aesthetically pleasing and well-narrated of these nature documentaries, in my opinion, is the Snow Leopard and Friends. Majestic valleys and towering snow-capped peaks set the scene. The film shows fluffy snow leopard cubs nestled in a cave and magpies soaring high in the sky. The imagery is accompanied by sweeping, emotive music and whimsical nature documentary narration reminiscent of David Attenborough’s Planet Earth. Similarly, Where the Mighty Rivers Begin follows the lives of snow leopards, yaks, vultures, deer, foxes and other animals during cycles of birth, movement and survival. What’s striking though in both of these films is the near-total absence of people. Tibet is presented as an untouched wilderness. Portraying land as pristine and uninhabited has been used in past settler-colonial narratives such as in 19th-century photography in Australia or South Africa’s ‘empty land’ myth (Hore 2021, South Africa History Online 2021). In Wild Wonders in Xizang, a Chinese environmentalist educates Tibetan children about the importance of ecological conservation. The narrator states that more local people are spending time in nature and have even taken up bird-watching. There is no mention of Tibetan environmentalists. In fact, for Tibetans, environmentalism under Chinese rule is dangerous – especially when it involves criticism of state initiatives like the building of dams or illegal poaching (Central Tibetan Administration 2024).

5The other three short-length films in the Panorama focus more explicitly on the narrative of China bringing opportunity and prosperity to Tibet. In Youthful Xizang, the film follows a father as he trains his son in dressage. A former traditional equestrian, he hopes to pass on his passion and see his son succeed in the sport and take part in national and international competitions. The subtext is clear: that growth and opportunities are abundant. Yet, as with other films in the Panorama, what is left unsaid is just as telling as what is said. There is no mention of the broader political context surrounding childhood and cultural preservation in Tibet, and in particular the controversial residential boarding schools that critics say limit the transmission of Tibetan language and traditions (Tibet Action Institute 2025). The film ends with the narrator reflecting on the rapid development of Tibet, putting this progress on a par with state-led modernisation.

6Day and Night in Xizang continues in the same vein. The KIMFF website promotes this film as showcasing ‘a new Xizang with modern charm’. The film functions as a highlight reel of Chinese aid projects – tree planting in Lhasa, a Beijing-led theatre workshop and environmental research. Against the backdrop of high-rise buildings, a Chinese official coordinates tree planting on arid slopes, with drones airlifting saplings – symbolising China’s technological and environmental dominance. Another sequence shows Chinese scientists collecting water and air samples near Mount Everest to monitor pollution levels. The scene ends with the narrator’s earnest invitation: ‘join us in respecting nature’. Yet this is full of irony. It frames the Chinese state as the bringer of progress to a barren land and cultural stagnation. Again, I was struck by what the film chose not to present. There was no mention of any harmful environmental impact of state-led extraction of resources such as lithium and copper mining or of the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, desertification of grasslands and water shortage due to Chinese infrastructure projects in Tibet (Hayes 2025). The environmental angle, a thread running through several of the films, greenwashes the history of China’s occupation of Tibet by denying the reality of ecological destruction due to state-led resource extraction and development projects and erasing local knowledge and experiences about environmentalism.

7The only narrative film and perhaps the most blatantly propaganda-like film is the Life of Buda. The film follows an elderly man, Buda, a former ‘emancipated serf’ in Tibet. In the film, he suddenly falls ill and enters a delirious state reminiscing about his mother. There are flashbacks to when his mother was pregnant with him, as she worked in the fields as a serf alongside her husband. The bright colours and the outfits from previous scenes in present-day Tibet are swapped for grey-tone buildings and clothing, portraying a bleak and dreary Tibet. The film shows servants cowering in front of lords, serfs such as Buda’s parents toiling in fields and, ultimately, Buda’s father being murdered by Tibetan elites who steal the people’s grain. The film ends dramatically as Buda’s mother crawls along the ground towards her dead husband. By spotlighting the suffering of serfs under Tibetan elites, the film casts China as the heroic saviour bringing order, progress and prosperity to a land otherwise trapped in misery. This distorted framing reduces complex histories to propaganda, serving as a calculated tool to legitimise Chinese control over Tibet. The film’s narrative is so outrageously one-sided that it verges on the comical.

8The PHCRC’s influence doesn’t stop at curating the Xizang Panorama. What’s especially troubling is that Dr Xun Zhan, who curated the Panorama and serves as PHCRC’s deputy director, was also a member of the festival jury. That is, the same person responsible for putting forward a film series largely seen as a tool of Chinese state propaganda and cultural erasure was given the power to evaluate other films. Dr Zhan’s role on the jury sends a clear signal: independent Tibetan voices and critical perspectives on Beijing are not welcome at the KIMFF.

9The decision to include the Xizang Panorama in this year’s film festival did not go unnoticed in Nepal and beyond. An alliance of 145 Tibet-related organisations released a joint statement on 27 May 2025 calling for the boycott of the Xizang Panorama. Furthermore, writing for the Tibet-focused media Phayul, Tenzin Nyidon denounced the film festival’s decision to include the Panorama this year, pointing out that ‘for many in the Tibetan community and beyond, the inclusion of the programme not only undermines the festival’s stated mission but also contributes to the silencing of Tibetan voices struggling against decades of political and cultural suppression’ (Phayul 2025). Social media posts, such as those of Students for a Free Tibet, have also criticised the KIMFF for supporting what they call ‘China’s genocidal erasure of Tibetans’. Similarly, Tibet Solidarity’s social media posts call the Xizang Panorama ‘weaponised storytelling’.

10Dhondup Wangchen and Golog Jigme, critically acclaimed Tibetan film-makers and activists who were jailed and tortured for making a film in 2008 about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, penned an open letter to the KIMFF on 29 May 2025. They stated: ‘The films being shown in this programme are not harmless stories. They are propaganda. They tell the world that Tibet is free and happy under Chinese rule, while in reality, our people are under constant surveillance, our language is being eradicated, and our children are being separated from their families and sent to colonial boarding schools’ (Phayul 2025).

11Xizang Panorama was unquestionably a cover for an erasure and propaganda strategy. These films don’t depict the full reality of China’s governance of Tibet, one of surveillance and military control. The Panorama depicts Tibet merely as a passive landscape over which China rules and where it enforces environmental and development aid projects, rather than as a place inhabited by people with the agency to tell their own stories. In addition to this, the use of ‘Xizang’ instead of ‘Tibet’ endorses the Chinese state’s narrative, effectively eroding space for Tibetan self-representation.

12After the screening, there was a brief question-and-answer session with the producers and directors of the films. They introduced themselves and spoke briefly about the process of making the films. There were some notable moments. The director of the KIMFF presented the films as coming from the ‘highlands of China’ rather than Tibet. At one point, the translator on stage fumbled and used the word Tibet, accidentally stepping outside of the protocol that was no doubt called for at this event. The only person who spoke up was the French Tibetologist Katia Buffetrille, whose pointed questions about Tibetan representation clearly made everyone on stage uncomfortable. Professor Zhan's response was diplomatically vague – something about welcoming different opinions and inviting people to visit China in order to dispel any anti-China sentiment. The evening felt like a microcosm of something larger – a gradual narrowing of what can be safely discussed with respect to Tibet, wrapped in the language of cross-cultural cooperation and exchange.

13In a context in which funding from Chinese donors is increasingly omnipresent across Nepal’s cultural landscape, there is increasing pressure on Nepalese cultural workers to not associate with pro-Tibet discourse. The anxiety at the festival was palpable. As China assumes a growing role in shaping development and cultural agendas across Asia through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the inclusion of the Xizang Panorama at this year’s KIMFF prompts critical questions. While Xizang Panorama and its films aren’t infrastructure projects, they still fall under the cultural arm of the BRI– part of a broader effort to promote state-approved narratives beyond China’s borders. This year marks a shift in KIMFF’s discourse with respect to Tibet, which coincides with the first time the festival has accepted China as a primary sponsor. It is worth noting that, while China’s approach might seem striking, it follows a long history of powerful nations using diplomatic, colonial and development frameworks to influence cultural narratives overseas. The strategy isn’t new. Only the actor has changed. Yet acknowledging this broader pattern should not dilute the urgency of addressing its manifestations in this context.

14Film festivals are never apolitical; they wield power to legitimise certain narratives while marginalising others. In the name of multicultural inclusion and cross-cultural collaboration between China and Nepal, Xizang Panorama functioned as an exercise in soft power and a cinematic campaign of erasure. As the KIMFF allowed this erasure of Tibetan voices and of the name Tibet itself from its framework, it became complicit in undermining its own stated commitment to amplifying ‘fractured voices’ and ‘reclaiming narratives’. To add insult to injury, the KIMFF did not address the controversy publicly. Although numerous appeals have been made for a public apology and official clarification, the organisers have neither issued a statement nor acknowledged the concerns raised. If cultural spaces in the Himalayas are to remain open and inclusive, not just for Tibetans, but for all marginalised communities, then we must stay alert. It’s not enough to celebrate diversity in name only; institutions must be held to account. They need to be transparent about their partnerships, responsible in how they showcase stories, and committed to curating with care and integrity.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Central Tibetan Administration. 2024. Wrongfully Imprisoned Tibetan Environmentalist Released After Serving 15 Years in Prison. https://tibet.net/wrongfully-imprisoned-tibetan-environmentalist-released-after-serving-15-years-in-prison/ (accessed in May 2025).

Dorjee, T and Leibold J. 2025. ‘Beijing Wants to Erase Tibet’s Name. Don’t Let Them’. Journal of Democracy, online exclusive. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/beijing-wants-to-erase-tibets-name-dont-let-them/ (accessed in May 2025).

Hayes, A. 2025. ‘Social and Environmental Impacts of Tibetan Displacement and China’s Minority Policy in Tibet’. Institute for Security and Development Policy Voices 84. https://www.isdp.eu/social-and-environmental-impacts-of-tibetan-displacement-and-chinas-minority-policy-in-tibet/.

Hore, Ja. 2021. ‘How Landscape Photographers Reinvented the Colonial Project in Australia’. UNSW Newsroom. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2021/11/how-landscape-photographers-reinvented-the-colonial-project-in-a (accessed in November 2021).

International Campaign for Tibet. 2024. ‘Commission on China: Severe human rights violations in Tibet’. https://savetibet.org/commission-on-china-severe-human-rights-violations-in-tibet/ (accessed in January 2025).

Jones, V. 2025. What’s in a Name? Tibet, Xizang, and the politics of erasure. Inkstick Media. https://inkstickmedia.com/whats-in-a-name-tibet-xizang-and-the-politics-of-erasure/ (accessed in January 2025).

Nyidon, T. 2025. Kathmandu Film Festival Under Scrutiny for Hosting Chinese Propaganda Segment ‘Xizang Panorama’. Phayul. https://www.phayul.com/2025/05/28/52357/ (accessed in 28 May 2025).

South African History Online. 2022. Empty Land Myth. Accessed 29 May 2025. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/empty-land-myth.

Tibet Action Institute. 2025. Colonial Boarding Schools. February 2025. https://tibetaction.net/colonialboardingschools/.

Tibet Network. 2025. Joint Statement: KIMFF. International Tibet Network, May 2025. https://tibetnetwork.org/joint-statement-kimff/.

Wangmo, D. 2025. China’s Intensive Mining in Tibet Is Raising Serious Concern About Tibet’s Ecology. Tibet Policy Institute, April 2025. https://tibetpolicy.net/chinas-intensive-mining-in-tibet-is-raising-serious-concern-about-tibets-ecology/.

Haut de page

Notes

1 I’m indebted to several people who helped me think through and revise this article. I’m grateful to Himali Dixit for encouraging me to write on this topic and to produce a film review. I’d especially like to thank Katia Buffetrille for her generous support with revisions, content advice, for sharing resources and for helping to prepare this piece for publication. I first met Katia Buffetrille and Chiara Letizia at the Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival where we watched Xizang Panorama together with Shiriin Barakzai– an experience that sparked many of the reflections in this piece. I’d like to thank Shiriin Barakzai who offered invaluable input on content, revisions and details of the films I had missed and to Alexander von Rospatt, Ester Bianchi, and Ugyen Tsering for their constructive feedback and revisions.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Manju von Rospatt, « The erasure of ‘Tibet’ from the Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival »European Bulletin of Himalayan Research [En ligne], 64 | 2025, mis en ligne le 15 octobre 2025, consulté le 14 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ebhr/3504 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15auu

Haut de page

Auteur

Manju von Rospatt

Manju von Rospatt is an early-career researcher who recently completed her MA in Development Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague. Her master’s thesis explored Nepalese immigrants in the United States, focusing on how their diasporic social networks provide informal social protection and support. Now based in Kathmandu, her research interests include international relations, climate justice and migration. She is especially drawn to ethnographic, participatory and mixed methods that centre individual narratives within broader sociopolitical and economic contexts. Manju is also particularly interested in the interaction between engaged research, social action and policymaking. She is currently a research fellow at Nepal Economic Forum.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search