Tibet appeared into international
political scenario in 20th century as a Buffer State between the mounting of
the British India, the Russian Empire, and the Chinese Empire. China however turns out well to
uphold Tibet as its suzerainty in international diplomatic scenario while there
was no physical control over Tibet during the period. Tibet was then remained
de-facto independent state having its full control over its territorial subject
except some border areas in Kham and Amdo. In 1930s, Tibet come into western
view as Utopia-Shangri-la and to some it was Lamaist state of theocratic rule
and to other it was feudal state of aristocratic ruler. In 1951 it was turn out
to be an autonomous region of Peoples’ Republic of China[1] and the traditional
legitimate Tibetan government known as dGa'-lden Pho-brang under the XIV Dalai
Lama Tenzin Gyatso was budge into exile in India in 1959. Since then historical
justification of rule over Tibet has been written widely on their best reason
and it remain unsolved so far.
Regarding the history of political
relation between Tibet and China, respected scholar at their best convenience has
written many and furnished various account of testimony. There are broadly two
basic versions of history is now available in our hand. The Chinese version,
obviously no doubt, an attempt has been made to prove historically Tibet was
under administration control of China that is to justify today's communist
Chinese rule over Tibet. On other hand, Tibetan version, certainly to prove its
status historically independent state that is now occupied by China.
Today however, there is no more
argument and dispute on the question that Tibet was became territorial part of
Peoples' Republic of China in 1951, and as on now HHDL has offer his acceptance
to be remained as part of China securing genuine autonomy with maximum
fundamental rights.[2]
No matter how sooner and later the political problem is going to be settled
between them, nevertheless, research on historical part of Sino-Tibetan
relation is to be done at large level right away. Indeed the basic problem here
is appeared to be historical problem.
China from their side, wanted to
solve this problem forever asking HHDL to accept historically Tibet as part of
China giving precondition for the dialogue. While from HHDL side, wanted to
solve Tibetan problem within framework of political establishment under Peoples'
Republic of China’s minority right of nationality union or federal system of
‘one nation two systems’ forgetting about historical part of it saying that
historically Tibet was an independent state and there no need of rewriting the
history.
It is thus, mandatory to solve
historical part of its problem in the historian classroom prior to negotiating
table.
The golden era of Tibet during 7th to
9th Century
Tibet and China being neighbouring
country, they have been sharing trade, technology, culture, and other social
activities since the time immemorial.
The very first documented record of political relation between China and
Tibet was crop up during gnam-ri- srong-btsan (558-618?) the 32nd king of
Yar-klung (Tubo Kingdom) dynasty, who was ruling his Kingdom from palace
"pho-brang mi-gyur byam-pa ling" at Yarlung Tsanpo (valley),
had sent his ambassadors to Chinese court twice in the early seventh century,
608 and 609 respectively.[3]
Son of gnam-ri- srong-btsan, the
emperor srong-btsan sgam-po (617-650 AD) unified all the Tibetan tribes and
extended its empire in central Asia counting China then under Tang dynasty
(618-907). In 640 the powerful Tang
emperor 2nd, Taizong (627-649) has offered
his niece Princess Wencheng (Tibetan: Wun Shing Kongjo (?-683) to emperor
Srong-btsan sgam-po[4]
in order to develop political tied with Tibet. Successor emperors of Yarlung
dynasty had continued Tibet as a central Asian empire until the mid 9th
century.
During the period, Tibet and China
however had no easy political relation under their struggle for imperial
expansion and have fought several wars and made many treaties.[5]
During the 38th King, emperor
khri-srong lde’u-btsan (742-796), and Tang emperor 12th Daizong, Tibet has even
taken control of the Chinese capital Keng-Shi (Xian) in 763.[6] In
764, the stone pillar known as "zhol rdo-ring" was installed in front
of Potala palace inscribing details of this account. During the period of the 41st King, emperor
khri ral-pa-can (802-841; r815-841) and 16th Tang emperor Mu'u Tsang (826-840) in settlement of Sino-Tibetan relation, a peace treaty of
bilingual account inscribed on stone pillar called "khran-ching
rdo-ring" was signed between them in 821 which is popularly also known as
dbon-zhang stone pillar treaty[7]. In this inscription also
spell the famous saying “Chinese will be happier in the land of China and
Tibetans are in Tibetan soil”.
Tibet during 9th to 13th century
Empire of Tibetan Yarlung dynasty
erupts to end with assassination of the 42nd King dar-ma 'u-dum btsan po (r.841-843). Tibet since then remained scatter of power
among various principalities. Tibet however grown-up with new trend of
spirituality and was at zenith of Buddhist proliferation. Received lots of
Buddhist masters from Indian, produced great Tibetan learned masters and yogis,
and highest rate of literary publications published during the span. This
period was highly spiritual and prospers era, Tibet then converted into
Buddhist based harmonies socio-religio-eco-political state. Tibet, in of such
nature would always be major factor in determining its polity in onward Tibetan
history and the same has to scrutinize in future course of Tibetan polity too.
Tibet, Mongol and Yuan Dynasty 13th to
14th century
After collapsed of Yarlung dynasty
and during Tibet in scattering of power, Mongolian was in rising of its empire
around the Tibet. In 1240 Mongols
(Tibetan: Hor-sog) Prince Godan, a brother of Guyuk Khan and cousin brother, Kablai Khan[8]
invaded Tibet. Learning about captivating Tibetan Buddhism and its great
masters, Godan chose to invited the
great Tibetan luminary, Sa-skya Pandita kun-dga’ rgyal-mtsen (1182-1251) in
1244. After visiting of Sa-skya
Pandita with his two nephews[9]
at Liangzhou endorsed him as representative of Tibet and royal
celebrant in 1246. Tibet then subsequently became subject to Mongolian rule
under Guyuk Khan (r.1246-1248), Qaghan Mongke as well as Kublai khan who later
became emperor of China as Yuan dynasty[10]. Since then, throughout
rise and fall of Mongol imperial including Yuan dynasty Tibet however, part and
partially remained continued under influence of many Mongol clans and
expeditions from time to time.
Tibet under Sakyapa rule (reign
1253-1349)
Sakyapa lamas were became spiritual
master for all Mongolian tribes and this privilege advantaged 'gro-mgon
chos-rgyal phags-pa (1235-80) to establish himself and his sect as the
preeminent political power in Tibet. With the espousal of
Mongolian ruler like Qaghan Mongke (r.1251-1259) and Kublai Khan (r.1260-1294),
entire traditional Tibetan territorial called thirteen myriarchies (Tibetan-
khri skor bcu gsum) and later three regions (chol kha gsum) were brought under
his administration in 1953 and 1260 respectively. Sakyapa dynasty in seven
successors[11]
in name of dpon-chen have successful rule over Tibet in following years.
Tibet during Chinese Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644)
Ming dynasty (1368-1644) whose
jurisdiction was limited to traditional Chinese territory has no influence over
Tibetan ruler and no political relations have been developed between them[12] identically that previous
Yuan and next Qing dynasty have enjoyed a relation with Tibet. In the wake of
Kublai Khan's and the Sakyapa 'phags-pa alliance, Ming emperor Yongle (r. 1402–1424) did attempt
to develop a relationship with Tibet inviting Karmapa, de-bzhin-gshegs-pa (1384–1415) of black hat and
rJe Tsong-kha-pa (1357–1419) of
yellow hat etc. However, it was vain and remained limited to religious affair
of granting some honorary title and official token gift to Tibetan lama, which they
have been doing and did to many others such as Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam,
Thailand, Korea etc.[13]
In contemporary period of Chinese
Ming dynasty, Tibet was ruled by following Tibetan rulers.
Rule of Phag-dru and Rin-spung (reign
1349-1565)
Toward the end of Mongol Yuan empire the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the
Mongols in Tibet then under rule of bla-ma dam-pa bsod names rgyal-mtshan
(r1345-49) was officially
overthrown in rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Ta’i si-tu byang-chub
rgyal-mtsan (1302–1364) in 1349 and new Tibetan ruler was able to establish
its regime over Tibet.[14] Phagmodru in eleven successors[15] gained independent rule over Tibet.
However, during 10th reign of phag-gru, Rin-spung
mtsho-skyes rdo-rje (r.1493-1499) has establish himself as supreme authority
and he continued rule aside by nominal
heading phag-gru reign upto 11the ngag-dbang bkra-shis grags- pa (r.1499-1504).
His successor in five lineages[16] continued thereafter. This
line of rulers is also called as rin-spung-ba dynasty reign upto 1565. However,
Tibet soon entered another period of internal power struggle.
Rule of Tsangpa (reign 1565-1642)
In 1565, one of
ministers, self styled ruler known as the Tsangpa king
Zhing Zhag Tse-brten rdo-rje (r.1565-1617) overthrew the rin-pung
princes ngag dbang ‘jigs-grags[17]
and established Tibetan new ruler as Tsangpa dynasty presiding three successors[18].
During the reign of the above three Tibetan dynasties 1349
to 1642, Tibet had enjoyed its polity with full sovereignty without any
external influences of both Mongol and China and of course not Ming Dynasty.[19]
Güshi Khan and
gzhung-sa dga'-lden pho-brang of fifth the Dalai Lama
In the 1630s, Tibet was became entangled in the power struggles
between the rising Manchu and various Mongol and Oirad factions.
Religious prejudice in favour of
yellow hat of Gelugpa School as well as the fourth Dalai Lama (1589-1616),
being a Mongolian grandson of Altan Khan (1507–82), King of Tumed Mongol,[20] Güshi Khan (1582–1655) of
the Mongol clan Khoshud invaded Tibet in 1637. Destroying potential rivals,
like the prince of Tsang, skar-ma stan-skyong dbang-po (r.1620-42), Güshi helped
the Fifth Dalai Lama ngag-dbang bla-zang rgya-mtsho (1617-1682) to establish as
the highest spiritual and political authority in Tibet in 1642.[21] The Dalai Lama then
popularly came to known as fifth the great and his government known as
gzhung-sa dga'-lden pho-brang that still continue as Tibetan legitimate
government following all lineage of the Dalai Lama right to present XIV Dalai
Lama. Fifth Dalai Lama had visited to Beijing in 1652 on invitation of Shunzhi
Emperor (r. 1644–1661) of Qing Dynasty[22]
The sixth Dalai Lama and Lhazang Khan
The fifth Dalai Lama's death kept
secret for fifteen years by the regent sde-srid, sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho
(1653-1705) and the sixth Dalai Lama Tshangs-bdyang rgya-mtso (1683-1706) was
not enthroned until 1697 at the age of 14 year. The sixth Dalai Lama enjoyed a
free lifestyle of drinking, womanizing, and writing love songs.[23] In 1705, Lhazang Khan of
the Khoshud used the sixth Dalai Lama's escapades as excuse to take control of
Tibet. The regent was murdered, and the Dalai Lama was sent to Beijing. He died
on the way, in Kokonur.[24] Lhazang Khan appointed a
new Dalai Lama, who however was not accepted by the public. The seventh Dalai
Lama bskal-bzang rgya-mtso (1708-1757) was found in kham-Lithang and kept at
Kumbum monastery became a rival candidate.
Dzungars, the
seventh Dalai Lama and Manchu Qing Dynasty (1644-1911)
In 1717, the Dzungars Tshe-dbang rab-brtan of another
Mongol clan, taking advantage of the situation, invaded Tibet by deposing and
killing pretenders of Lobzang Khan ( -1717). However, they soon began to loot
the holy places of Lhasa. Chinese emperor Kangxi (1622-1723) taking advantage of situation
extended immediate response by sending military expedition in 1718 but the
Dzungars not far from Lhasa annihilated them.[25] This marks new chapter in Sino-Tibetan history that Chinese army was able
to enter in Tibet for the first time. In 1720, the larger expedition
sent by Emperor Kangxi expelled the Dzungars from Tibet and the troops were
hailed as liberators. Mongol and Chinese escorted the seventh Dalai Lama bskal-bzang rgya-mtso from Kumbum to Lhasa and religious ceremonial
enthronement was taken place in 1721.[26]
After the rebellion of a Khoshud Mongol prince near
Kokonur, the Qing made the part of Amdo and Kham region into the province of
Qinghai in 1724, and incorporated eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese
provinces in 1728[27]. Chinese government ruled these areas
indirectly through the Tibetan noblemen. Tibetans claimed that Tibetan control
of the Batang region of Kham in eastern Tibet appears to have continued
uncontested from the time of an agreement made in 1726.[28]
Following the Qing military withdrawal
from central Tibet in 1723, there was a period of civil war. Pho-lha-ba
bsod-nams stobs-rgyal (1689-1747) had
crushed his rebel group nga-lum-sbyar gsum with Chinese support, established himself as supreme
authority of Tibet, and ruled for 1728-47.
Manchu began posting Ambans to Lhasa.[29] In order to reduce
influence, the young seventh Dalai Lama was moved from Lhasa in 1728 giving
invitation to visit Beijing.[30]
After Pho-lha-ba
died, his son 'jigs-med rnam-rgyal has important role in Tibetan polity. He continued
to rule Tibet but in contrary to his father, he killed and deposed Manchu
ambams from Lhasa. Qing
army then entered in Tibet
and killed him in 1750.
In 1751, Qing Emperor Qianlong (1711-1799;
r.1736-95) support the seventh Dalai Lama at age of 42 years to restore as
political head of Tibet who lead a government ('Ka'-shag) with four dka’ slon
in it.[31] Under Emperor Qianlong,
no further attempts were made to integrate Tibet into the empire. Instead,
Emperor drew on Buddhism to prop up support among the Tibetans. Six thangkas
remain portraying the emperor as Manjusri and Tibetan records of the time refer
to him by that name.[32]
Nepali Gurkha invasion of Tibet
Nepalese Gurkhas forces sent by Bahadur Shah, the
regent of Nepal, invaded Tibet twice in 1788 and 1791 respectively. The Manchu
Qianlong Emperor sent troops to Lhasa, and in 1793, together with Tibetan
troops, they managed to drive the Nepalese troops to within about 30 km of
Kathmandu before the Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure they
had plundered.[33] [34]
Soon the Chinese emperor decreed that the selection of the
Dalai Lama and other high lamas such as the Panchen Lama were under the
supervision of Qing government's Amban Commissioners in Lhasa. An imperial
edict ordered that future dalai lamas were to be chosen from the names of
children drawn from a "golden urn".[35]
Although, all-following Dalai Lamas were not selected by
Manchu golden urn nor could they all have ruled as head of the state. The
tenth, eleventh and twelfth Dalai Lamas were selected by the golden urn method[36] while the ninth, thirteenth,
and fourteenth Dalai Lamas were selected by the Tibetan religious incarnation's
commission. Among them the XIII Dalai Lama who has, full fresh enthroned and
rules for Tibet in de-facto Independence state.[37]
Tibet in early Western-British
Fascination (1878)
The first Europeans to arrive in Tibet were Portuguese
missionaries in 1624 by the hand of António de Andrade, and were welcomed by
the Tibetans who allowed them to build a church and gradually Jesuits and
Capuchins from Europe visited but finally expelled them from Tibet in 1745. In
1774, a Scottish nobleman, George Bogle, was send to Shigatse to investigate
trade for the British East India Company.[38] However, by the 19th century
the situation of foreigners in Tibet grew more ominous. The British Empire was
encroaching from northern India into the Himalayas and Afghanistan, the Russian
Empire of the tsars was expanding south into Central Asia, and each power
became suspicious of intent in Tibet. In 1840, Sándor Kőrösi Csoma arrived in
Tibet, hoping that he would be able to trace the origin of the Magyar ethnic
group. By the 1850s, Tibet had banned all foreigners from Tibet and shut its
borders to all outsiders.
In 1865, Great Britain began secretly mapping Tibet
through trained Indian surveyor-spies like Nain Singh, the most famous,
measured the longitude and latitude and altitude of Lhasa and traced the
Yarlung Tsangpo River, Bramaputra. [39]
British
Invasion in 1904
At the beginning of the twentieth century both the British
Empire and Russian Empire competed for supremacy in Central Asia. Tibet was the
biggest prize of this rivalry. To forestall the Russians, in 1904, a British
expedition led by Colonel Francis Younghusband was sent to Lhasa to force a
trading agreement and to prevent Tibetans from establishing a relationship with
the Russians. British expedition under Colonel Francis Younghusband invaded
Tibet with military force numbered over 3,000 killing some above 1000 Tibetan
army near Gyantse a village called Guru on March 31, 1904[40].
When the mission reached Lhasa, the XIII Dalai Lama had
already fled to Urga in Mongolia. Younghusband however proceeded to draft a
treaty[41] unilaterally, and have it
signed in the Potala by the regent, Ganden Tri Rinpoche, and any other local
officials he could gather as an ad-hoc government and the British force left
the city of Lhasa on 23 September 1904[42]. The position of British
Trade Agent at Gyangzê was occupied from 1904 until 1944. It was not until
1937, with the creation of the position of "Head of British Mission
Lhasa", that a British officer had a permanent posting in Lhasa itself.[43] A Nepalese agency had also
been established in Lhasa after the invasion of Tibet by the Gurkha government
of Nepal in 1855.[44]
In the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which confirmed
the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan
territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China
engaged "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the
territory or internal administration of Tibet".[45] Britain also recognized the
"suzerainty of China over Tibet" in the Anglo-Russian Convention of
1907, drafted by the British and, in conformity with such admitted principle,
engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the
intermediary of the Chinese Government."[46]
Qing Control Reasserted
After the British invasion, which alarmed the Qing rulers
in China, they sent an imperial official to the region to begin reasserting
Qing control, but the locals revolted and killed. The Qing government in
Beijing then appointed Zhao Erfang, the Governor of Xining, "Army
Commander of Tibet" to reintegrate Tibetan region Amdo (Qinghai) into
China in 1905.
After the restoration of normalcy in Lhasa and XIII Dalai
Lama was about to return to Lhasa from Amdo in the summer of 1909, the Chinese
decided to send military forces to Lhasa to keep control over him. The Dalai
Lama once again fled, this time to India.[47] The situation was soon to
change, however, as, after the fall of the Qing dynasty in October 1911; Zhao's
soldiers mutinied and beheaded him.[48]
Relations with the
Republic of China
On 1 January 1912, the Republic of China was established
and one month later, the regent of Qing Emperor Xuantong renounced.[49] In April 1912, the Chinese
garrison of troops in Lhasa surrendered to the Tibetan authorities while the
new Chinese Republican government wished to make the commander of the Chinese
troops in Lhasa its new Tibetan representative. The Dalai Lama returned to
Lhasa from India in July 1912 and issued a proclamation distributed throughout
Tibet, which condemned "The Chinese intention of colonizing Tibet under
the patron-priest relationship", and stated that, "We are a small,
religious, and independent nation."[50] By the end of 1912, signing
the "Three Point Agreement" the Chinese troops in Tibet had returned,
via India, to China proper. [51]
The Tibet-Mongolia Treaty of 1913
In early 1913, Agvan Dorzhiev and two other Tibetan
representatives signed a treaty in Ulanbatar-Urga, proclaiming
mutual recognition and their independence from China. However, Agvan Dorzhiev's
authority to sign such a treaty has always been - and still is - disputed by
some authorities including legal experts.[52]
The 13th Dalai Lama himself denied he authorized Agvan
Dorzhiev to conclude any treaties on behalf of Tibet.[53] The Tibetan government never
ratified this treaty and Tibetan government published no Tibetan version of
this treaty. A Russian diplomat pointed out to the British ambassador that
since Agvan Dorzhiev himself is a Russian subject, his legal ability to sign
such a treaty is in question.[54]
The Mongolian text of the treaty is published by the
Mongolian Academy of Sciences in 1982.[55]
The Simla Convention of 1914
In 1914, representatives of China, Tibet and Britain
negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Convention. During the convention, the
British tried to divide Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. When negotiations
broke down over the specific boundary between Inner and Outer, the British
demanded instead to advance their line of control, enabling them to annex 9,000
square kilometers of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet corresponds
to the north-west parts of modern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. While
recognizing Chinese suzerainty over Tibet[56] and affirming the latter's
status as part of Chinese territory, with a promise from the Government of
China that Tibet will not be converted into a Chinese province.[57] Tibetan representatives
signed without Chinese approval, more so as an act of defiance now that the
Chinese army had left; after the collapse of Chinese authority in Tibet in
1912.[58]
Tibet de-facto Independent (1912- 1951)
ruled by the XIII Dalai Lama (1876-1933)
The 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed until his death in
1933 since 1912. At that time, the government of Tibet controlled all of
Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang) and western Kham (Khams), roughly coincident with the
borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today. Eastern Kham, was under the control
of Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. The situation in Amdo (Qinghai) was more
complicated, with the Xining area controlled after 1928 by the Hui warlord Ma
Bufang, who constantly strove to exert control over the rest of Amdo (Qinghai).
In 1935 the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso was born in
Amdo in eastern Tibet and was recognized as the latest reincarnation. He was
taken to Lhasa in 1937 where he was later given an official ceremony in 1939.
In 1944, during World War II, two Austrian mountaineers, Heinrich Harrer and
Peter Aufschnaiter came to Lhasa, where Harrer became a tutor and friend to the
young Dalai Lama giving him a sound knowledge of western culture and modern
society, until he was forced to leave in 1959.
Rule of the People's Republic of China:
PLA liberation of Tibet
Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of
China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950, the
People's Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo, crushing
resistance from the ill-equipped Tibetan army. Since the signing of the
Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951,[59] Tibet has been officially
incorporated into the People's Republic of China. According to this Agreement
between the Tibetan and Chinese central governments, the Dalai Lama-ruled
Tibetan area was supposed to be a highly autonomous area of China.
This 1951 agreement was initially put into effect in the
Tibetan regions under Dalai Lama's administration (Ü-Tsang and western Kham).
However, Eastern Kham and Amdo (Qinghai) were considered by the Chinese to be
outside the administration of the government of Tibet in Lhasa, and were thus
treated like any other Chinese province with reform and bowdlerization on
monastic structure and culture. As a result, a rebellion led by Tibetan warlord
broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June 1956. The insurrection, later
supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was cease in 1959
after the 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in
India. An isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1972 when the CIA
abruptly withdrew its support. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese
government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented
full-scale land reform in all areas of Tibet.
The establishment of Chinese rule over Tibet eventually
succeeded only in 1959 when the Dalai Lama and his government principals fled
into exile. The Chinese peaceful liberation of Tibet, now and then, however,
was never been a popular liberation to Tibetan people's themselves either in
large or small scale. It did cost thousands of thousands Tibetans lives as a
direct result of liberation operation. Tibetan people in and out of Tibet have
suffer equally even those people who actively involved with Chinese liberation
of Tibet including high profile leaders like Panchen Rinpoche and Baba Phuntsok
Wangyal etc.
Conclusion
Endorsing historical facts as above we may conclude some
of following points as an exact nature in which Tibetan polity and its power
being transferred all the way from early 7th century up to the present. Proper understanding of political
significance of Sino-Tibetan relations in the past may prevail proper thoughtful
for future prospects.
During the rule of Tibetan emperor 7th to 9th century,
Tibet was a powerful empire of central
Asia and neighbouring Chinese empire was a good friend as well as potential
enemy despite of two Princesses of Tang Dynasty married to Tibetan emperor,
Princess Wencheng (Tibetan: Wun Shing Kongjo (?-683) and The Princess Jincheng
(金成)
(Tibetan: Kyimshang Kongjo).
During 13th to 14th century, Tibet
became subject to Mongolian rule under Guyuk Khan (r.1246-1248), Qaghan Mongke
(r.1251-1259) and Kublai Khan (r.1260-1294) respectively. Sakya-pa rule was
established (reign 1253-1354) as vice regal in Tibet, but nature of the rule
was very much high status that Sakya-pa Buddhist masters were highly honored by
Mongolian. Moreover, 'gro-mgon chos-rgyal phags-pa (1235-80) was a friend,
adviser, spiritual master to Kublai Khan (r.1260-1294) and also a relative
through his younger brother phyag-na rdo-rje being son-in-law to Kublai Khan.
Tibet was then also enjoyed ally with Mongol ruling China as Yuan dynasty.
During the reign of three Tibetan dynasties 1349 to 1642,
Tibet had entertained its polity with full sovereignty without any external
influences either of Mongol or of China. None of Ming Emperors, (1368-1644) had
enjoyed and exercised a political influence over Tibet as Yuan, and Manchu had.
There is no question regarding
the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China in the course of the chaotic
era of the sixth and seventh Dalai Lamas. Manchu Chinese army did succeed
entering Tibet for the first time and directly involved in Tibetan political
affairs. Manchu however could not establish Tibet as such of internal part but
assert as suzerain nation.
Between Tibet and China at various occasions, entertained
personal relations at the leadership levels as well as religious manner are may
not be necessarily a good evidence to make argument as a subject of rule and
ruler. The Chinese insistence on such
evidences is defensive posture of historical fact.
As soon as Tibet became
socio-religious nation from 13th century onwards, since then, the nature of its
political affairs is very significant in the proper understanding of
Sino-Tibetan relation. Tibet has always been given priority in religious affairs
rather than its political importance. On other hand, China has always used Tibetan
religious psychology as best means for political gain.
Tibet was historically a separate political entity as that
of Mongol, Manchu, Turkish, China but Tibet became subject to rules by Yuan and
Qing rulers. Tibet did admit to the Mongol and Manchu Empires and Tibet was not
an independent during these two periods but never submit herself as internal
part neither of them nor to Ming China.
Tibet also did political remarried to PRC in 1951 and
became part of China. It was marriage done between two separate political
entities under its new alliance and it was not that historically Tibet then
already part of China.
Tibetan relation with communist China was very new and
totally different experience than previously they have with Yuan, Ming and
Manchu. Being Buddhist ideological based society or individual, Tibetan in as
such nature, had better experience with Yuan and Manchu than that of now with
communist China.
The theory that Tibet became part of China in the 13th
century onward is a very recent construction and present justification of
Chinese rule over Tibet is a Marxist ideology of Soviet Union, a unitary of
multinational country. No Chinese government of Yuan and Manchu Empire
exercised control over Tibet as today China’s has Tibet Autonomous Region and
Tibet outside TAR.
Here is the significant fact
that HHDL wanted to create a future history readily allowing Tibet to be
remained as part of China believing that it will prosper mutual benefit despite
of all the bitter experience of the past.
Historical fact is not a matter
of making argument between China and Tibet as two parties and favouring one of
them but Tibetan does have enough historical reasons in believing
their rights for political struggle demanding of either autonomy or genuine
independence as well.
China without addressing Tibetan peoples concern now and
then Chinese right to rule over Tibet may no longer be well founded and there
will another chapter of Sino-Tibetan relations in near future.
Tuesday, May 27,
2008
Tibetan sayings
about their political credo:
“As long as
there is peace in country, no matter who rule and govern the country. Even if
an Ani (nun) rules the country, there is no problem in it.”
“It is very
unfortunate that the happiness of sentient being is now come into hand of man
lord.” bcom-lden rig-ral comments on 'gro-mgon chos-rgyal phags-pa (1235-80)
becoming ruler of Tibet.
“Let us have cup
of drink- beer and forget about Tibetan government. It is, he, de-srid
sans-rgyes rgya-mtsho (1653-1705) has to do bother about“ by a monk bodyguard,
in response to desi himself secretly inquiring in city with changed dressed
up.
[1] Sino-Tibetan Agreement,
Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, 17-Point Agreement
of May 23, 1951. This agreement however, became invalid when the Dalai Lama and
his government official entourage fled to India in 1959 and declared that
"he renounce his commitment in the agreement since China government itself
fail to fulfilled the agreement made of" in press conference at Tezpur
on 18 April 1959.
[2] In 1987, the Dalai Lama
delivered a speech to the US Congressional Human Rights Committee, putting
forth his "five-point scheme for Tibetan peace" and in 15 June 1988,
he address to the European Parliament, Strasburg and declared his
"seven-point new schemes". These two speeches served as formal
explanation of the Dalai Lama's stand and policy toward "middle way"
approach. Later he publicly announced Middle Way approach as best answer for
Sino-Tibetan problem and got Tibetan peoples approval through Assembly of
Tibetan Peoples Deputies on 18 September 1997, the 4th session of the 12th ATPD.
[3] The
government of Namri Songtsen sent two embassies to China in 608 and 609,
marking the appearance of Tibet on the international scene. [Beckwith, Christopher I. The Tibetan Empire
in Central Asia. A History of the Struggle for Great Power among Tibetans,
Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages, 1987, Princeton:
Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02469-3, p. 17.]
[4] The Chinese records
mention an envoy in 634. On that occasion, the Emperor requested marriage to a
Chinese princess and was refused. In 635-6 the Emperor attacked and defeated
the Azha (Tibetan: ‘A zha; Chinese: Tüyühün) people, who lived around Lake
Kokonur in the northeast corner of Tibet, and who controlled important trade
routes into China. After a Tibetan campaign against China in 635-6, [OTA l. 607]
the Chinese emperor agreed to provide a Chinese princess to Songtsän Gampo.
[5] Between
665-670 Khotan was defeated by the Tibetans and a long string of conflicts with
the Chinese T'ang Dynasty over territories in the Tarim Basin, including the
city of Kashgar began in 670 and lasted until 692. [Beckwith, Charles I. (1993). The Tibetan
Empire in Central Asia. Princeton University Press, 36, 146.]
The Arabs and Turgis became increasingly prominent during
710-720. The Tibetans were allied with the Arabs and eastern Turks. Tibet and
China fought on and off in the late 720s. At first Tibet (with Turgis allies)
had the upper hand, but then started losing battles. After a rebellion in
southern China, and a major Tibetan victory in 730, the Tibetans and Turgis
sued for peace.
In 734, the Tibetans married their princess Dronmalön (‘Dron ma lon) to the
Turgis Qaghan. The Chinese allied with the Arabs to attack the Turgis. After
victory and peace with the Turgis, the Chinese attacked the Tibet army. The
Tibetans suffered several defeats in the east, despite strength in the west.
The Turgis Empire collapsed from internal strife. In 737, the Tibetans launched
an attack against the king of Bru-za (Gilgit), who asked for Chinese help, but
was ultimately forced to pay homage to Tibet. In 747, the hold of Tibet was
loosened by the campaign of General Gao Xianzhi, who tried to re-open the
direct communications between Central Asia and Kashmir. By 750, the Tibetans
had lost almost all of their central Asian colonial possessions to the Chinese.
In 753, even the kingdom of Little Balur (Gilgit) was captured by the Chinese.
[Stein, R. A. Tibetan Civilization (1922). English edition with minor revisions
in 1972 Stanford University Press, p. 65. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN
0-8047-0901-7.]
[6] Early
in khri-srong lde’u-btsan reign regions to the
West of Tibet paid homage to the Tibetan court. From that time onward the
Tibetans pressed into the territory of the Tang emperors, reaching the Chinese
capital Chang'an (modern Xian) by 763/764. Tibetan troops occupied Chang'an for
fifteen days and installed a puppet emperor while Emperor Daizong of Tang was
in Luoyang. Nanzhao (in Yunnan and neighbouring regions) remained under Tibetan
control from 750 to 794, when they turned on their Tibetan overlords and helped
the Chinese inflict a serious defeat on the Tibetans. [Marks, Thomas A. (1978).
"Nanchao and Tibet in South-western China and Central Asia." The
Tibet Journal. Vol. 3, No. 4. Winter 1978, pp. 13-16.]
[7] After successful
Tibetan raids into Chinese territory, Buddhists in both countries sought
mediation. [Shakabpa, Tsepon W. D. (1967). Tibet: A Political History, pp.
49-50. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.]
The Sino-Tibetan treaty completed in 821/822, which established peace for more
than two decades. [Beckwith 1987: 165-167] A bilingual account of this treaty
is inscribed on a stone pillar, which stands outside the Jokhang temple in
Lhasa. [A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. H. E. Richardson. Royal Asiatic
Society (1985), pp. 106-143. ISBN 0-94759300/4.]
Tibetan Civilization. R. A. Stein. 1962. 1st English edition 1972. Stanford
University Press, p. 65. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7
Treaty was made installing three stone pillars, one
at Chinese capital city Keng-Shi in 821 and another in front of Lhasa Jokhang
temple in 822 and third at border area
marking the border. Lhasa pillar is still exists while two other are
missing (may keep somewhere in museum).
[8] Godan
and Guyuk were sons of Ögedei Khan (r. 1229-1241)
and grandsons of the great Genghis Khan (r. 1206-1227) in third row of lineage
while their cousin brother, Kablai Khan was in forth row of lineage to Genghis,
who ruled China as Yuan dynasty in between 1271-1368.
[9] 'phags-pa
(1235-80) at age of 14 yrs old and phyag-na rdo-rje (1239-67) at 6 yr old
visited Liangzhou with Sakya pandita. Phyag-na Rdo-rje would later marry a
daughter of Kublai Khan and 'Phag-pa would become Kublai's spiritual teacher as
well as founder of Tibetan Sakya dynasty.
[10] This event marks the
incorporation of Tibet into China, according to modern Chinese historians.
However, because the Mongols did not yet conquer China at that time, Tibetan
historians argue that China and Tibet remained two separate units within the
Mongol Empire.[Laird, Thomas. (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations
with the Dalai Lama, pp. 114-117.Grove Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-8021-1827-1.]
It may therefore be more accurate to characterize this as first Tibet and then
China being incorporated into the Mongol Empire, which became the Yuan Dynasty
after Kublai Khan conquered China and created the Mongol Yuan Dynasty.
When Möngke became Qaghan in 1251, he assigned the various districts of Tibet
as appanages to his relatives. Kublai Khan was appointed by Möngke Khan to take
charge over the Chinese campaigns in 1253. After the death of Sakya Pandita,
Phagpa remained at the camp of Prince Godan and learn Mongolian language. Five
years later, Kublai Khan asked Godan to give him Chögyal Phagpa, he was then 23
old, and who later also converted him to Buddhism. Shortly after, Kublai Khan
in a succession fight took over his brother, Möngke, and became the khan, the
ruler of the Mongols and even later on became emperor of China. Kublai Khan in
turn appointed Chögyal Phagpa as his Imperial Preceptor in 1260 the year when
he became emperor of Mongolia. Phagpa was the first "to initiate the
political theology of the relationship between state and religion in the
Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhist world".[Laird, Thomas (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations
with the Dalai Lama, p. 115. Grove Press, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-8021-827-1. ] [F. W. Mote.
Imperial China 900-1800. Harvard University Press, 1999. p.501.]
In 1265 Drogön Chögyal
Phagpa returned to Tibet and for the first time made an attempt to impose Sakya
hegemony with the appointment of Shakya Bzang-po (a long time servant and ally
of the Sakyas) as the dpon-chen ('great administrator') over Tibet in 1267. A
census was conducted in 1268 and Tibet was divided into thirteen myriarchies.
In 1269, Drogön Chögyal Phagpa returned to Kublai's side at his new capital,
Khanbaliq (modern day Beijing). He presented the Qaghan with a new script
designed to represent all of the languages of the empire. The next year he was
named Dishi ('imperial preceptor'), and his position as ruler of Tibet (now in
the form of its thirteen myriarchies) was reconfirmed and the Sakya hegemony
over Tibet continued into the middle of the fourteenth century.[Wylie, Turnell V. (1977)
"The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted," Harvard Journal
of Asiatic Studies 37.1: 103-133]
Laird asserts that the
ruling Mongol khans never administered Tibet as part of China, instead ruling
them as separate territories "as the British administered India and New
Zealand in more recent times; the fact that Britain once colonized both does
not make India part of New Zealand today". Of later Mongol and Tibetan
accounts interpreting the Mongol conquest of Tibet, Laird asserts that "they,
like all non-Chinese historical narratives, never portray the Mongol
subjugation of Tibet as a Chinese one".
[11] 1. ‘gro
mgon chos rgyal ‘phags pa (r.1253-1280), 2. Dharmapalarashita (r.1280-87), 3.
shar-pa ‘jam-yang rin-chen rgyal-mtshan (r.1287-1305), 4. bdag-chen bzang-po
dpal (r.1306-24), 5. bdag-chen namm-kha’ legs-pa (r.1325-43), 6. ‘jam-dbyangs
don yod (r1343-44), 7. bla-ma dam-pa bsod names rgyal-mtshan (r1345-49)
[12] The exact nature of
Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty of China is contested by modern
scholars who are divided on the issue of whether or not the Ming Dynasty
(1368–1644) had unquestioned sovereignty over Tibet. Some scholars believe this
was so, citing the Ming court's issuing of various titles to Tibetan leaders,
Tibetans' full acceptance of these titles, and a renewal process for successors
of these titles that entailed traveling to the Ming capital. Other scholars
assert it was a relationship of suzerainty, that Ming titles were only nominal,
that Tibet remained an independent region outside of Ming control, and that it
simply paid tribute up until the reign of Jiajing (r. 1521–1566) when he
ceased relations. Some scholars argue that the significant religious nature of
the relationship of the Ming court with Tibetan lamas is underrepresented in
modern scholarship. Others underscore the commercial aspect of the
relationship, noting the Ming Dynasty's insufficient amount of horses and the
essential horse trade with Tibet.
The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th
century, while at times the Tibetans also used successful armed resistance
against Ming forays. The Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to
reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations in the wake of a Mongol-Tibetan alliance
initiated in 1578, the latter of which affected the foreign policy of the
subsequent Manchu Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) of China in their support for the
Dalai Lama of the Yellow Hat sect. By the late 16th century, the Mongols proved
to be successful armed protectors of the Yellow Hat Dalai Lama after their
increasing presence in the Amdo region, culminating in Güshi Khan's 1642
conquest of Tibet.
Thomas Laird, in his book The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai
Lama, writes that Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain present the government
viewpoint of the People's Republic of China in their Historical Status of
China's Tibet, and fail to realize that China was "absorbed into a larger,
non-Chinese political unit" during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, which Wang and
Nyima paint as a characteristic Chinese dynasty succeeded by the Ming. [Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet:
Conversations with the Dalai Lama (New York: Grove Press, 2006), 106–107]
John Powers, in his book History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the
People's Republic of China, states that: Chinese writers assert that the
territories of the Mongol empire were inherited by the succeeding Ming
Dynasty ... The main problem with Chinese claims that later dynasties
inherited Mongol lands is that the Mongol empire included vast areas of Asia
and eastern Europe which were not in fact controlled by the Ming or Qing
dynasties. The Mongols conquered most of Eurasia, and their territory extended
from Lithuania in the West to Persia in the south. But although contemporary Chinese
histories emphatically state that Tibet became part of Chinese territory as a
result of Mongol conquests, they do not attempt to claim that Lithuanians are a
minority nationality of China or that the Crimea is an inalienable part of
Chinese territory.
Dawa Norbu, a leading author of the Tibetan diaspora, argues that modern
Chinese Communist historians tend to be in favor of the view that the Ming
simply reappointed old Yuan officials in Tibet and perpetuated their rule of
Tibet in this manner. [Dawa Norbu, China's
Tibet Policy (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 58.]
Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and
that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence
China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet", despite
the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they
left Tibet.
Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming Dynasty's
territory was Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan, while "the Ming did not possess
Tibet".[Yiu Yung-chin,
"Two Focuses of the Tibet Issue", in Tibet Through Dissident Chinese
Eyes: Essays on Self-determination (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998), 121]
Shih-Shan Henry Tsai writes that when the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424)
sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413, it was a mission to gain the
allegiance of various Tibetan princes.[Shih-Shan Henry Tsai, Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle
(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), 187–188.]
[13] The Ming Dynasty granted kingly titles to sects
such as the Black Hat Karmapa lamas, but the latter had previously declined
Mongol invitations of gaining titles. When the Ming Yongle Emperor invited Je
Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), founder of the Yellow Hat sect, to come to the Ming
court and pay tribute, the latter refused the offer. Wylie argues that Ming
titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or
even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan
Dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in
Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.[ Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 468–469.]
Helmut Hoffman states that the Ming upheld the facade of rule over Tibet
through periodic missions of "tribute emissaries" to the Ming court
and by granting nominal titles to ruling lamas, but did not actually interfere
in Tibetan governance.[Helmut Hoffman,
"Early and Medieval Tibet", in The History of Tibet: Volume 1, The
Early Period to c. AD 850, the Yarlung Dynasty (New York: Routledge, 2003), 65]
Melvyn C. Goldstein writes that the Ming had no real administrative authority
over Tibet, as the various titles given to Tibetan leaders did not confer
authority as the earlier Mongol Yuan titles had. He asserts that "by
conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized
political reality".[Goldstein, The Snow
Lion and the Dragon, 4–5.]
[14] The Phagmodru
(Phag-mo-gru) myriarchy centered at Neudong (Sne'u gdong) was granted as an
appanage to Hülegü in 1251. The area had already been associated with the Lang
(Rlang) family, and with the waning of Ilkhanate influence it was ruled by this
family, within the Mongol-Sakya framework headed by the Mongol appointed
Pönchen (Dpon chen) at Sakya. The areas under Lang administration were
continually encroached upon during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries. Janchub Gyaltsän (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302-1364) sought the
restoration of Phagmodru lands after his appointment as the Myriarch in 1322.
After prolonged legal struggles, the struggle became violent when Phagmodru was
attacked by its neighbours in 1346 and by the Pönchen in 1348. Janchung
Gyaltsän was able to defend Phagmodru, and continued to have military
successes, until by 1351 he was the strongest political figure in the country.
Military hostilities ended in 1354 with Jangchub Gyaltsän as the unquestioned
victor. He continued to rule central Tibet until his death in 1364, although he
left all Mongol institutions in place as hollow formalities. Power remained in
the hands of the Phagmodru family until 1434. [Petech, L. Central Tibet and The Mongols. (Serie Orientale
Roma 65). Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente 1990: 85-143]
Phagdru introduce new administration system such as instead of the
13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, he divided
Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon)
In 1368, a Han Chinese revolt known as the Red Turban Rebellion toppled the
Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China, allowing Zhu Yuanzhang to establish the Ming
Dynasty and his rule as the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398). Hok-Lam Chan
writes that it is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the civil
war going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was
anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang Dynasty.
Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the
Karmapa of the nearer Kham region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in
the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for
the new Ming court. As evident in his imperial edicts, Hongwu was well aware of
the Buddhist link between Tibet and China, and wished to foster this link. The
fourth Karmapa Rolpe Dorje (1340–1383) rejected Hongwu's invitation, although
he did send his disciples as envoys to the Ming court in Nanjing. [Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo,
Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 262]
Hongwu
also trusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a
religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain Buddhist
scriptures. [Elliot Sperling,
"The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and
the Early Ming", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period:
c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy (New York: Routledge,
2003), 475.]
[Goldstein,
The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 4] [Karenina Kollmar-Paulenz, Kleine Geschichte
Tibets, München 2006, p. 98-104]
[15] 1.
Ta’i si-tu byang-chub rgyal-mtsan
(r.1349–1364), 2. Tai si tu ‘jam dbyangs sakya rgyal mtshan (r.1364-72), 3.
syyan snga grags byang chub (r.1373-81), 4. chos rje bsod nams grags pa
(r.1381-85), 5. mi dbang grags pa rgyal mtshan (r.1385-1432), 6. wang grags pa
‘byung gnas (r.1432-44), 7. kun dga’ legs (r.1444-54), 8. chos rje ngag gi dang
po (r.1454-84), 9. spyan snga chos kyi grags pa (r.1484-93), 10. rin spyungs pa
mtsho skyes rdo rje (r.1493-99), 11. ngag dbang bkra shis grags pa
(r.1499-1504),
[16] 1. don yod rdo rje, 2. ngag dbang
rnam rgyal, 3. don grub tshe brtan rdo rje, and 4. ngag dbang ‘jigs grags.
[17] In 1565, the
powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, who
styled himself as the Tsangpa or Ü-Tsang king [Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 29; Laird, The Story of Tibet, 152.]
[18] zhing-zhag tshe brtan rdo-rje
(1565-1617), sde-srid phun tshogs rnam-rgyal (1618-20), and karma bstan-skyong
dbang-po (1620-42)
[19] Dawa Norbu writes that, although this would have been true for the eastern
Tibetan regions of Amdo and Kham's "tribute-cum-trade"
relations with the Ming, it was untrue if applied to western Tibetan regions of
Ü-Tsang and Ngari,
which were ruled by "three successive nationalistic regimes" after
the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302–1364),
which Norbu writes "Communist historians prefer to ignore."[China's Tibet Policy (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 58.]
Hugh E. Richardson
writes that the Ming Dynasty exercised no authority over the succession of
Tibetan ruling families, the Phagmodru (1354–1436), Rinbung (1436–1565), and
Tsangpa (1565–1642).[ Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial
China, 29.]
[20] Micheal Weiers, Geschichte der Mongolen, Stuttgart 2004,
p.175ff
[21] After the victory in
Ü-Tsang, Güshi Khan installed the fifth Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet, but
conferred the actual governing authority to the regent Sonam Chöpel. Although
Güshi Khan had granted the Dalai Lama "supreme authority" as
Goldstein writes, the title of 'King of Tibet' was conferred upon him, spending
the summertime in pastures north of Lhasa and occupying Lhasa each winter. [The
Snow Lion and the Dragon, 6.] [Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 31–32.]
Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama shared power with his regent and Güshi
Khan during his early secular and religious reign. However, Rawski states that
he eventually "expanded his own authority by presenting himself as
Avalokitesvara through the performance of rituals," by building the Potala
Palace and other structures on traditional religious sites, and by emphasizing
lineage reincarnation through written biographies. [Rawski, The Last Emperors, 251].
[22] Dawa Norbu, William Rockhill, and George
N. Patterson write that when the Shunzhi Emperor (r. 1644–1661) of the
subsequent Qing Dynasty invited the Fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso to Beijing
in 1652, Shunzhi treated the Dalai Lama as an independent sovereign of Tibet.[
Norbu, China's Tibet Policy, 52][ Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt",
89.]
[23] [Karenina
Kollmar-Paulenz, Kleine Geschichte Tibets, München 2006, p. 109-122]
[24] Micheal Aris, Hidden Treasures and
Secret Lives: a study of Pemalingpa (1450-1521) the Sixth Dalai Lama
(1683-1706) Simla: IIAS, Motilal Banarasidass, 1988. pp. 140-166 ISBN 81-208-501-1
[25] Richardson, Hugh E.
(1984). Tibet and its History. Second Edition, Revised and Updated, pp. 48-9.
Shambhala. Boston & London. ISBN 0-87773-376-7.
Stein, R. A. Tibetan Civilization. (1972), p. 85. Stanford University Press.
ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7.(paper)
[26] Richardson, Hugh E. (1984). Tibet and its
History. Second Edition, Revised and Updated, pp. 48-9. Shambhala. Boston &
London. ISBN 0-87773-376-7 (pbk)
[27] The Times Atlas of World
History, 1989, p175; Schirokauer, Conrad. A Brief History of Chinese
Civilization, 2006, p242; Wang Jiawei, "The Historical Status of China's
Tibet", 2000, pp. 162-6; Spencer Chapman gives a similar, but more
detailed, account of this border agreement:
"In 1727, as a result of the Chinese having entered Lhasa, the boundary
between China and Tibet was laid down as between the head-waters of the Mekong
and Yangtse rivers, and marked by a pillar, a little to the south-west of
Batang. Land to the west of this pillar was administered from Lhasa, while the
Tibetan chiefs of the tribes to the east came more directly under China. This
historical Sino-Tibetan boundary was used until 1910. The states Der-ge,
Nyarong, Batang, Litang, and the five Hor States—to name the more important
districts—are known collectively in Lhasa as Kham, an indefinite term suitable
to the Tibetan Government, who are disconcertingly vague over such details as
treaties and boundaries."[Chapman, F.
Spencer. (1940). Lhasa: The Holy City, p. 135. Readers Union Ltd.,
London.]
[28] Abbé Huc. The Land of the
Lamas. Taken from: Travels in Tartary, Thibet and China, 1844-1846 by MM. Huc
and Gabet, translated by William Hazlitt, p. 123
[29] Pro-Chinese historians
argue that the ambans' presence was an expression of Chinese sovereignty, while
those favouring Tibetan claims tend to equate the ambans with ambassadors.
"The relationship between Tibet and (Qing) China was that of priest and
patron and was not based on the subordination of one to the other,"
according to the thirteenth Dalai Lama,["Proclamation
Issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIII (1913)" W.D.
Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Haven, 1967), pp.Ê246-248.] (The thirteenth Dalai Lama was deposed
(1904), reinstated (1908), and deposed (1910) again by the Qing Dynasty
government.
Merely presence of resident commissioner, Amban in Lhasa can not be interpreted as Chinese rule over Tibet in
such manner. The amban in Tibetan understanding came into existence as
religious representative under their relationship with China as priest and
patron. Ambans has been disposed several times from Lhasa whenever there was
problem of political adjustment within the time of its enforcement early in
1727 and 1750
[30] Richardson, Hugh E. (1984). Tibet and
its History. Second Edition, Revised and Updated, p. 52. Shambhala. Boston
& London. ISBN 0-87773-376-7 (pbk)
[31] Wang Jiawei, "The Historical Status of China's Tibet", 2000,
pp. 170–3
In 1751, the Qianlong Emperor
(1711-1799; ruled 1737-1796) issued a 13-point decree which abolished the
position of regent (desi), put the Tibetan government in the hands of a
four-man Kashag, or Council of Ministers, and gave the ambans formal powers.
The Dalai Lama moved back to Lhasa to preside (in name) over the new
government.
The Tibetan version has it that: In 1751, at the age of forty-three, Kelzang
Gyatso constituted the "Kashag" or council of ministers to administer
the Tibetan government and abolished the post of Regent or Desi, as it placed
too much power in one man’s hand and the Dalai Lama became the spiritual and
political leader of Tibet.[ Seventh
Dalai Lama KELSANG GYATSO.]
By reinstalling VII Dalai Lama on his throne which is his birth right
authorized seat as Dalai Lama, can not interpreted as Manchu viceroy rule over
Tibet.
[32] Shirokauer, A Brief History of
Chinese Civilization, Thompson Higher Education, (c) 2006, 244.
The Tibetan view holds that Tibet was never subject to foreign rule after it
emerged in the mid-seventh century as a dynamic power holding sway over an
Inner Asian empire. These Tibetans say the appearance of subjugation to the
Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th and 14th centuries, and to the
Manchu rulers of China’s Qing Dynasty from the 18th century until the 20th
century, is due to a modern, largely Western misunderstanding of the personal
relations among the Yuan and Qing emperors and the pre-eminent lamas of Tibet.
In this view, the lamas simply served as spiritual mentors to the emperors,
with no compromise of Tibet’s independent status.
In China’s view, the Western misunderstandings are about the nature of China:
Western critics don’t understand that China has a history of thousands of years
as a unified multinational state; all of its nationalities are Chinese. The
Mongols, who entered China as conquerors, are claimed as Chinese, and their
subjugation of Tibet is claimed as a Chinese subjugation. [Sperling, Elliot. (April 13, 2008). Don't Know Much About
Tibetan History. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-24]
[33] Teltscher, Kate (2006).
The High Road to China: George Bogle, the Panchen Lama, and the First British
Expedition to Tibet, pp. 244-246. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. ISBN
978-0-374-21700-6
[34] The British forced the
Tibetans to withdraw from Nepal. In the 19th century, the power of the Qing
government declined. As Chinese soldiers posted to Lhasa began to neglect their
military duties, the ambans lost influence. After the invasion of Tibet by
General Zorawar Singh General of Sikh Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab wars were
fought with the Indian Kingdom of Jammu and were concluded with peace treaties
at Ladakh in 1841 with Maharaja Gulab Singh. and Nepal in 1856 without the
involvement of Beijing. According to Chinese source, Nepal was a tributary
state to China from 1788 to 1908. Chinese government claimed that in the 1856
treaty, both Nepal and Tibet claimed allegiance to China. The 1856 treaty
provided for a Nepalese mission in Lhasa which later allowed Nepal to claim a
diplomatic relationship with Tibet in its application for United Nations
membership in 1949.
[35] Goldstein,
Melvyn C., "A History Of Modern Tibet", University of California
Press, p44.
"The 'king' or governor of Tibet was no longer
appointed by the Chinese after 1750, and the Dalai Lama was tacitly recognized
as sovereign of Tibet, with the exception of Kham and Amdo on the one hand and,
on the other, Ladakh—which was at first under Moghul suzerainty before being
annexed by Kashmir after the Dogra war (1834-42). China henceforth defended
Tibet against foreign invasions (notably that of the Gurkhas, 1788-1792), but
reserved the right in future to superintend the choice of a new Dalai or
Panchen Lama, dictating a set of candidates from whom the final selection was
to be made by lot in the presence of the ambans (1792). In addition, the
Emperors loaded Lamaism with favours in China and Mongolia where they set up
temples and monasteries and issued invitations, often permanently, to great
incarnate Lamas of the Geluk-pa order, which had become the established
Church." [Stein,
R. A. Tibetan Civilization. (1972), p. 88. Stanford University
Press. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7.(paper)]
[36] Smith, Warren, "Tibetan Nation:
A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations", p. 140,
n, 59.
[37] Dalai Lama
VIII(1758-1804)=46, IX(1805-1815)=10, X(1816-1837)=21, XI(1838-1855)=39,
XII(1856-1875)=16, XIII(1876-1933)=57, and XIV(1934-)
[38] Teltscher, Kate. (2006).
The High Road to China: George Bogle, the Panchen Lama and the First British
Expedition to Tibet, p. 57. Bloomsbury, London, 2006. ISBN 0374217009; ISBN
978-0-7475-8484-1; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. ISBN 978-0-374-21700-6
[39] Bernbaum, Edwin. (1980). The Way to
Shambhala, pp. 18-19. Reprint: (1989). Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., Los
Angeles. ISBN 0-87477-518-3.
[40] The British Invasion of Tibet: Colonel
Younghusband, page 237
[41] The treaty made
provisions for the frontier between Sikkim and Tibet to be respected, for free
trade between British and Tibetan subjects, and for an indemnity to be paid
from the Qing court to the British Government for its expenses in dispatching
armed troops to Lhasa. It also made provision for a British trade agent to
reside at the trade mart at Gyangzê. The provisions of this 1904 treaty were
confirmed in a 1906 treaty signed between Britain and China, in which the
British, for a fee from the Qing court, also agreed "not to annex Tibetan
territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet.".
[42] Grunfeld, A. Tom, ''The Making of Modern
Tibet.'' ISBN 1-56324-713-5, p57
[43] McKay, Alex. The History
of Tibet. Routledge. 2003. p. 596. ISBN 0700715088.
[44] Bell, Charles, Tibet Past
and Present, Oxford University Press, 1924. pp. 46–7, 278–80
[45] Convention Between Great
Britain and China Respecting Tibet (1906)
[46] Convention Between Great
Britain and Russia (1907)
[47] Melvyn C. Goldstein, A
History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951, Los Angeles 1989, p. 49ff
[48] Hilton, Isabel. (1999).
The Search for the Panchen Lama. Viking. Reprint: Penguin Books. (2000), p.
115. ISBN 0-14-024670-3.
[49] Smith, Warren W. (Jr.)
(1996). Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan
Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3155-2. , p. 181
[50] Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the
Dalai Lama XIII (1913) [106] www.tibetjustice.org/materials/tibet/tibet1.html
[51] Smith, Warren W. (Jr.)
(1996). Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan
Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3155-2. , p. 181
[52] Rubin, Alfred P.,
"The Position of Tibet in International Law", China Quarterly, 1968,
p123
[53] Tom A. Grunfeld, ''The
Making of Modern Tibet'', p. 65Grunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, p65, Bell, Charles, Tibet Past
and Present, 1924, pp150-151
[54] UK Foreign Office
Archive: FO 371/1608.
[55] Udo B.
Barkmann, ''Geschichte der Mongolei'', Bonn 1999, p. 380
[56] Article 2 of the Simla
Convention
[57] Appendix of the Simla
Convention, Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951,
University of California Press, 1989, p. 75
[58] China maintains that it
was signed under British pressure; however, the representative of China's
central government declared that the secretive
annexation of territory was not acceptable. The boundary established in the
convention, the McMahon Line , was considered by the British and later the
independent Indian government to be the boundary; however, the Chinese view
since then has been that since China, which had suzerainty over Tibet, did not
sign the treaty, the treaty was meaningless, and the annexation and control of
parts of Arunachal Pradesh by India is illegal. This paved the way to the
Sino-Indian War of 1962 and the boundary dispute between China and India today.
[59] The Agreement of the
Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for
the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or the Seventeen Point Agreement for the
Peaceful Liberation of Tibet for short, is the document by which the delegates
of the 14th Dalai Lama reached an agreement with the government of the
newly-established People's Republic of China on affirming Chinese sovereignty
over Tibet. It was signed and sealed in Beijing on 23 May 1951 and confirmed by
the government in Tibet a few months later. In addition, the following letter
written by the Dalai Lama indicating his acceptance was also sent to Beijing in
the form of a telegram on 24 October. "The Tibet Local Government as well
as the ecclesiastic and secular people unanimously support this agreement, and
under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Central People's Government, will
actively support the People's Liberation Army in Tibet to consolidate national
defense, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the
unification of the territory and the sovereignty of the Motherland." [
Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951, University
of California Press, 1989, pp812-813]
When the Dalai Lama fled in 1959, he and the government-in-exile repudiated the
agreement.
