Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, Oct. 14: Tibetans and Tibet supporters in the French capital are continuing their protests against the Musée Guimet, despite the museum’s recent decision not to rename exhibitor spaces as “Tibet” rather than “Himalayan world. While the Musée du quai Branly apologised and promised, on September 25, to restore the name “Tibet” with the romanised version of a Chinese term, “Xizang” on its artefacts.
For weeks, members of the Tibetan diaspora, human rights activists, and Students for a Free Tibet (SFT), a chapter-based network of youth activists, have gathered outside the Musée Guimet, demanding the recognition of Tibet as a distinct cultural and historical entity. Protesters chanted slogans such as “Tibet Exists. Name It.” and “Shame on Guimet,” calling on the museum to honor Tibetan heritage by renaming the exhibition halls to reflect Tibet’s true identity.
Despite the peaceful demonstrations, museum officials have rejected the appeal, stating that the name change was part of a broader global framework and that Tibet continues to be mentioned within the museum’s exhibits.
“Many researchers and experts in the field have also expressed their disagreement with this renaming and the invisibilisation of Tibet that it entails,” said Tenzin Yangchen, President of SFT France, speaking on behalf of the Tibetan community. “Their opposition underlines the importance of maintaining historical and cultural integrity in our academic and museum institutions. That is why we cannot remain silent.”
Yangchen also emphasised that the issue at the Guimet Museum is just one example of the increasing Chinese influence in France. “For decades, the Tibetan people have suffered under the oppression of the Chinese government. We cannot remain silent in the face of this injustice that now extends to our own cultural institutions.” She added that the protests would continue for as long as necessary until the Guimet Museum acknowledges Tibet as a nation with its own identity, culture, and artistic heritage. The activists are also stepping up efforts to engage with local politicians and government officials to press for change.
Nicolas Tournadre, a leading expert on Tibetan languages, has also criticised the museum’s reasoning, stating, “The term ‘Himalaya’ is a denomination that provides a cheap way of sidestepping the once powerful Tibetan state. Indeed, the northern slopes of the Himalayan range only form the southern border of Tibet, which, additionally, also has several other ranges, which reach over 7,000 meters high, crossing it from east to west. On the other hand, certain populations south of the Himalayas have adopted many elements of Tibetan culture, such as the Ladakhi [in India], the Sherpa [in Nepal], or the Sikkimese [in India]: They are often referred to as ‘Bhoti,’ derived from the word ‘Bod’ – ‘Tibet’ [in Tibetan].”
Fernand Meyer, a Tibetologist and former chairholder of the Science and Civilisation of the Tibetan World at the Practical School of Advanced Studies (EPHE), echoed these concerns. “Since the Musée Guimet has no problem talking about Tibetan Buddhism, it would be strange to reduce it to Himalayan Buddhism alone!” Meyer remarked. “The ‘Himalayan world’ is not a culturally definable entity as such. Rather, it is a zone where the cultural areas of India and Tibet meet. To reduce the latter to its southern, geographically Himalayan fringe, therefore, does not do justice to the history and extension of a specifically Tibetan culture.”
The controversy gained public attention when Le Monde raised concerns that the Musée du Quai Branly had replaced “Tibet” with “Xizang Autonomous Region,” and the Musée Guimet had renamed its exhibition spaces focused on Tibet as the “Himalayan world.” Scholars argue that these changes align with Chinese state propaganda, which aims to rewrite and distort Tibetan history and culture, ultimately legitimising China’s illegal occupation of Tibet.
