The Tibetan Context in Khoshut-Qing Relations: from Equality to Subordination
Abstract
Between the 1600s and 1630s, the Khoshuts were the most powerful Oirat tribe. Therefore, when the leaders of the Gelug school made an appeal to Oirats for military assistance in the intersect struggle in Tibet, the chuulgan (Mong. ‘congress’) of Oirat rulers made a decision to send some combined forces to the Land of Snows. After the successful campaign of the Khoshut Güshi Khan in 1637–1642, the Fifth Dalai Lama Lobsang Gyatso, who became the spiritual and secular head of Tibet, granted him and his descendants the titles ‘Ruler of Faith’ (Tib. chogyal) and ‘King of Tibet’ (Tib. gyalpo). Then, Güshi Khan established close relations with the Manchu Qing dynasty, the new rulers of China, and managed the organization of his own state in Qinghai for which he wrote the main legislative act known as Khökhnuuryn chuulgany tsaazyn bichig. However, his sons divided the domain into two parts — Tibetan and Kokonor (Qinhai) ones between which, especially at the time of Gyalpo Lhabzang, Gushi Khan’s grand-grandson, tensions and hostility arose. Lhabzang also entered into a confrontation with the powerful desi (Tib. ‘regent’) Sangye Gyatso which resulted in death of the latter in 1705. The Sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang Gyatso’s displacement by Lhabzang and the appointment of the new Dalai Lama, Ngawang Yeshe Gyatso, led to an escalation of hostilities with other Oirats which resulted in the capture of Lhasa by the Dzungars in 1717 and the establishment — due to the Qing support — of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kelzang Gyatso’s rule in Tibet. The Qing government had approved a new administrative structure in Tibet — Kashag — the leaders of which Kanchenne and Pholanay had somewhat special relationships with the Khoshuts: the first one was Lhabzang’s son-in-law, and the latter was considered an incarnation of Galdan Tsewang, Güshi Khan’s grandson. Khoshuts were viewed upon by the Fifth Dalai Lama as an important force for the future of the Gelug school, and Manchus also intended to preserve the role of Khoshuts in Tibet, but after the 1723 attempted Kokonor uprising by Luvsandanzan in the region, Beijing completely and dramatically changed its policies: the Khoshuts lost the right to be kings of Tibet, and were incorporated into the Qing Empire.
About the Author
Baatr Kitinov
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (Moscow, Russian Federation)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Between the 1600s and 1630s, the Khoshuts were the most powerful Oirat tribe. Therefore, when the leaders of the Gelug school made an appeal to Oirats for military assistance in the intersect struggle in Tibet, the chuulgan (Mong. ‘congress’) of Oirat rulers made a decision to send some combined forces to the Land of Snows. After the successful campaign of the Khoshut Güshi Khan in 1637–1642, the Fifth Dalai Lama Lobsang Gyatso, who became the spiritual and secular head of Tibet, granted him and his descendants the titles ‘Ruler of Faith’ (Tib. chogyal) and ‘King of Tibet’ (Tib. gyalpo). Then, Güshi Khan established close relations with the Manchu Qing dynasty, the new rulers of China, and managed the organization of his own state in Qinghai for which he wrote the main legislative act known as Khökhnuuryn chuulgany tsaazyn bichig. However, his sons divided the domain into two parts — Tibetan and Kokonor (Qinhai) ones between which, especially at the time of Gyalpo Lhabzang, Gushi Khan’s grand-grandson, tensions and hostility arose. Lhabzang also entered into a confrontation with the powerful desi (Tib. ‘regent’) Sangye Gyatso which resulted in death of the latter in 1705. The Sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang Gyatso’s displacement by Lhabzang and the appointment of the new Dalai Lama, Ngawang Yeshe Gyatso, led to an escalation of hostilities with other Oirats which resulted in the capture of Lhasa by the Dzungars in 1717 and the establishment — due to the Qing support — of the Seventh Dalai Lama Kelzang Gyatso’s rule in Tibet. The Qing government had approved a new administrative structure in Tibet — Kashag — the leaders of which Kanchenne and Pholanay had somewhat special relationships with the Khoshuts: the first one was Lhabzang’s son-in-law, and the latter was considered an incarnation of Galdan Tsewang, Güshi Khan’s grandson. Khoshuts were viewed upon by the Fifth Dalai Lama as an important force for the future of the Gelug school, and Manchus also intended to preserve the role of Khoshuts in Tibet, but after the 1723 attempted Kokonor uprising by Luvsandanzan in the region, Beijing completely and dramatically changed its policies: the Khoshuts lost the right to be kings of Tibet, and were incorporated into the Qing Empire.
References
1. Гончог 2008 ― Гончог-Чжигмэд-Ванбо. Повествование о жизни Всеведущего Чжамьян-Шадбий-Дорчже, могущественного ученого и сиддха, называющееся «Брод, ведущий к удивительно благому уделу» / Введен., перев., комментарии Н. В. Цыремпилова. Улан-Удэ: Изд-во БНЦ СО РАН, 2008. 312 с. [Könchog Jigme Wangpo. Povestvovanie o zhizni Vseveduschego Chzham’yan-Shadbiy-Dorchzhe, moguschestvennogo uchenogo i siddkha, nazyvayuscheesya «Brod, veduschiy k udivitel’no blagomu udelu» [A narrative called ‘The Ford towards the Virtuous Lot’ about the life of all-knowing Jamyang Shepa Dorje, a mighty scholar and siddha]. V. Tsyrempilov (intr., foreword, comm.). Ulan-Ude: Buryat Scientific Center of SB of RAS, 2008. 312 p.]
2. История 2016 ― История Хо-Урлюка // Санчиров В. П. Письменные памятники по истории ойратов XVII–XVIII веков. Элиста: КИГИ РАН, 2016. С. 29–35. [Kho Orluk’s history. Pis’mennye pamyatniki po istorii oyratov XVII–XVIII vekov [History of the Oirats: written monuments, 17th-18th centuries]. Sanchirov V. P. (comp.). Elista: Kalmyk Humanities Research Institute of RAS, 2016. Pp. 29–35].
3. Люлина 2016 ― Люлина А. Г. Тибетские институты власти и цинская система администрирования: особенности взаимодействия (середина XVII – конец XVIII вв.). Дисс… канд. ист. наук. М., 2016. 183 с. [Lyulina A. G. Tibetskie instituty vlasti i tsinskaya sistema administrirovaniya: osobennosti vzaimodeystviya (seredina XVII – konets XVIII vv.) [Tibetan government institutions and the Qing administrative system: peculiarities of mutual relations (mid-17th – late 18th cc.)]. A PhD thesis. Moscow, 2016. 183 p.]
4. Мартынов 1978 ― Мартынов А. С. Статус Тибета в ХVII–ХVIII веках в традиционной китайской системе политических представлений. М.: Наука, 1978. 284 c. [Martynov A. S. Status Tibeta v XVII–XVIII vekakh v traditsionnoy kitayskoy sisteme politicheskikh predstavleniy [Tibet’s status within the traditional Chinese political science framework: 17th-18th cc.]. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. 284 p.].
5. Солощева 2013 ― Солощева М. А. Кукунорский мятеж 1723–1724 годов и его значение для истории Тибета // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 13. Востоковедение. Африканистика. 2013. Вып. 1. С. 58–67. [Soloscheva M. A. The Kokonor Revolt of 1723–1724 and its historic significance for Tibet. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ser. 13. Vostokovedenie. Afrikanistika. 2013. Iss. 1. Pp. 58–67].
6. Успенский 2014 ― Успенский В. Л. О государстве Гуши-хана // Тибетология в Санкт-Петербурге. Сб. ст. Выпуск 1. СПб.: Петербургское востоковедение, 2014. С. 52–59. [Uspensky V. L. Güshi Khan’s state. Tibetologiya v Sankt-Peterburge. Collected papers. Iss. 1. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2014. Pp. 52–59].
7. Успенский 2011 ― Успенский В. Л. Тибетский буддизм в Пекине. СПб.: Студия НП-Принт, 2011. 367 с. [Uspensky V. L. Tibetskiy buddizm v Pekine [Tibetan Buddhism in Beijing]. St. Petersburg: Studiya NP-Print, 2011. 367 p.]
8. Цэнгэл 2017 ― Хошууд Цэнгэл. «Алтан хааны цаазын бичиг» хийгээд Гууш хааны «Цаазын бичиг»-ийн харьцаа, холбогдол // Ойрад ба дээд монголын туух, сурвалж бичгийн судлал. Улаанбаатар, 2017. С. 118–144. [Khoshuud Tsengel. Altan Khan’s Code of Laws and that of Gushi Khan: a comparative study. Oyrad ba deed mongolyn tuukh [History of the Oirats and Upper Mongols]. A student’s book. Ulaanbaatar, 2017. Pp. 118–144].
9. Шакабпа 2003 ― Шакабпа В. Д. Тибет: Политическая история. Пер. с англ. А. Дюранова. СПб.: Нартанг, 2003. 432 с. [Shakabpa W. D. Tibet: a political history. A. Dyuranov (transl.). St. Petersburg: Nartang, 2003. 432 p.].
10. A Collection 1995 ― A Collection of Historical Archives of Tibet. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1995. 107 р.
11. Bod mi’i 2002 ― Bod mi’i khrims mthun gzhung dga’ ldan pho brang dbu brnyes nas lo 360 ‘khor ba’i bka’ drin rjes dran dang ma ongs mdun bskyod kyi kha phyogs. Dharamsala: LTWA, 2002. 458 p.
12. Heissig 1962 ― Heissig W. Some Notes by Sung-yün on the Administration of Tibet. Oriens Extremus. 1962. Vol. 9. No. 1. Pp. 85–89.
13. Ishihama 1997 ― Ishihama Y. New Light on the ‘Chinese Conquest of Tibet’ in 1720 (based on the new Manchu sources). Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Krasser H., Much M. T., Steinkellner E., Tauscher H. (eds.). Vol. 1–2. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1997. Pp. 419–426.
14. Ngag bdang 2012 ― Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. Rgyal dbang lnga pa ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho’i rnam thar du ku la’i gos bzang [The autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama]. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2012. Vol. 1. 640 р.
15. Petech 1966 ― Petech L. Notes on Tibetan History of the 18th Century. T’oung Pao, Second Series. 1966. Vol. 52. Livr. 4/5. Pp. 261–292.
16. Petech 1972 ― Petech L. China and Tibet in the early 18th Century. History of the Establishment of the Chinese Protectorate in Tibet. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 309 р.
17. Ruegg 2003 ― Ruegg D. S. Mchod yon, yon mchod and mchod gnas / yon gnas: on the historiography and semantics of a Tibetan religio-social and religio-political concept. The History of Tibet. A. McKay (ed.). London – New York: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Vol. 2. Pp. 362–372.
18. Sperling 2012 ― Sperling E. Pho-lha-nas, Khang-chen-nas, and the last era of Mongol domination in Tibet. Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 2012. Vol. 65. Part 1. Pp. 195–211.
19. Sum-pa 1969 ― Sum-pa mkhan-po Ye-shes dpal-’byor. The annals of Kokonor. Ho-Chin Yang (transl.). Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series. Vol. 106. Bloomington: Indiana University; The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1969. 125 p.
Review
For citations:
Kitinov B. The Tibetan Context in Khoshut-Qing Relations: from Equality to Subordination. Oriental Studies. 2018;11(2):20-28. (In Russ.)
Views:
555
Email this article 