Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:27 am

Part 1 of 4

Tibet: A Political History [Excerpt]
by Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa
©  Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa
Cover Copyright ©  1984 Potala Publications



Table of Contents:

• Foreword
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• 1. An Introduction to Tibet
• 2. The Empire of the Early Kings of Tibet
• 3. The Struggle for Religious Survival
• 4. Lamas and Patrons
• 5. The Phamo Drupa, Rinpung, and Tsangpa Hegemonies
• 6. The Emergence of the Dalai Lamas
• 7. The Fifth Dalai Lama Assumes Power
• 8. Rival Powers in Tibet
• 9. The Seventh Dalai Lama and the Beginning of Manchu Influence in Tibet
• 10. War with the Gurkhas and the Dogras
• 11. Desi Shatra and Palden Dondup: Strong Men of the Nineteenth Century
• 12. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama and Britain's Border Policy
• 13. The Younghusband Military Expedition and Its Aftermath
• 14. The 1910 Chinese Invasion of Lhasa and Tibet's Struggle to Maintain Her Independence
• 15. Further Evidence of Tibetan Independence
• 16. Clashes Between Tibetans and Chinese in Kham
• 17. The Whirlwind of Political Strife
• 18. The Communist Chinese Invasion
• 19. The Revolt
• 20. Conclusion
• Appendix:
• 1. Ladakhi Letter of Agreement, 1842
• 2. Tibetan Letter of Agreement, 1842
• 3. Tibet-Ladakh Trade Agreement, 1853
• 4. Speech by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, at the Symposium on Buddhism's Contribution to Art, Letters, and Philosophy on November 29, 1956, New Delhi, India
• Glossary of Tibetan Terms
• Bibliography
• Index


Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa was born January 7, 1907, in Lhasa. He entered government service at the age of twenty-three and in nine years became Head of the Finance Department, serving concurrently as one of the eight influential spokesmen who presided over the Tibetan National Assembly. In addition to his extensive experience in government, Mr. Shakabpa has traveled abroad. In 1948 he headed the Tibetan Trade Delegation, which traveled around the world.

Following the Communist Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1951, Mr. Shakabpa took up residence in India, where he began work on a study of Tibet's political history. A number of books on Tibet have been published in recent years; most of them are devoted chiefly to religion or to contemporary events. Mr. Shakabpa's study, by contrast, is a balanced presentation of Tibetan political history from earliest times down to the present.

In preparing his book, Mr. Shakabpa has used some fifty-seven original Tibetan sources. Some are rare Tibetan government records; others represent materials not previously cited in English works. It will be noted that when a Tibetan source is cited in a footnote, no page number is given. Although contrary to Western academic methods, this practice is traditional in Tibetan historiography. Beginning with the earliest known Tibetan histories, only the title of a cited work was given -- apparently on the assumption that a literate person would be able to locate the page concerned, once he knew which book to read. It was only after working on his history for some time that Mr. Shakabpa came to know the Western method of giving page numbers and publishing data in citations; therefore, his book incorporates the traditional practice for Tibetan sources and the academic method for Western sources. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for him to rewrite all the citations of Tibetan materials, since some of them were unique government records he copied in Tibet and are no longer available. Moreover, those who read Tibetan will have little difficulty in locating the cited passages; those who do not would find page numbers valueless.

For the convenience of the general reader, Mr. Shakabpa has rendered the Tibetan names phonetically; but aware of their inconsistencies and of the confusion caused by numerous homophones in the Tibetan language, he has wisely included the correct Tibetan orthography for each entry in the Index, as well as in the Bibliography, which will greatly increase the value of his book to the serious student of Tibetan history. The system of orthographic transcription used is that described in T. Wylie, "A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 22 (December 1959), 261-67.

Mr. Shakabpa's book is a unique contribution to our understanding of Tibet, because his work marks the first time that a Tibetan lay official of high rank has written a study of his own country's political history. He sheds new light on certain significant factors in the evolution of that form of religious government unique in Tibet. In addition, he offers new and interesting evidence, which should help clarify the political status of Tibet in modern times.

I first met Tsepon Shakabpa in India in 1960, at which time we discussed at length his work on Tibetan political history. Since then, I have had a continuing interest in his progress, and it is, therefore, with pleasure and a sense of fulfillment that I now have the privilege of writing the foreword to this book, which is the fruition of Mr. Shakabpa's years of work.

Associate Professor of Tibetan Language and Civilization
University of Washington


In 1931 I was summoned to the house of my uncle, Norbu Wangyal Trimon, who was then the senior Minister of Tibet. He spoke to me at length and gave me a thorough briefing on the Chinese war with Tibet and how the Chinese were driven out of the country some years earlier. He further acquainted me with the Simla Convention of 1914, which had been concluded between the British, Tibetan, and Chinese plenipotentiaries, attending under equal powers. My uncle participated in that Convention as the assistant to Lonchen Shatra, then Prime Minister of Tibet and the Tibetan plenipotentiary at the Simla conference. My uncle handed me the drafts and documents of the Convention, together with the traditional ceremonial scarf, and said, "It will help Tibet if you write a political history after studying these documents." As I was quite young at the time, I was not fully aware of the significance of his advice or of the documents.

Early in 1946 my family and I made a pilgrimage to India, where I witnessed extensive movements for independence by the Indian people. While in Bombay, I heard speeches given before large crowds of people by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardu Vallabhai Patel. Those speeches moved me to realize the true value of independence. It was then that I really began to prize the documents given to me years before by my uncle. On my return to Lhasa, I pressured responsible officials to safeguard Tibet's independence and to develop diplomatic relations with foreign countries.

Toward the end of 1947, the government of Tibet assigned me to head a Trade Delegation of five men. We were instructed to visit major countries around the world to discuss commercial and political matters. While in India, we had a memorable audience with the late Mahatma Gandhi. Meeting that great man, who led India to independence by means of nonviolence, and hearing his fruitful advice was a truly great inspiration to me. In all the countries we visited, I and the other members of the Trade Delegation endeavored to further knowledge and understanding of Tibet. Owing to the results of this and other missions I have undertaken on behalf of my government and people, I realized that the world stood in need of information on Tibet's historical and political status.

When the Communist Chinese invaded eastern Tibet in 1950, government officials accompanied the Dalai Lama to Yatung, near the Indian-Sikkimese border. When an agreement was signed in the spring of 1951 between Tibet and China in Peking, I crossed over to India, rather than return to Lhasa and be forced to collaborate with the Red Chinese.

In India, I began to work on this book, knowing that there was no comprehensive and accurate political history in Tibetan, much Jess in English. I was able to secure numerous volumes of ancient manuscripts from Tibet, as well as through the kind assistance of my good friend, T. D. Densapa of Sikkim. I began an extensive study, using my uncle's documents as a background. When His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, visited India in 1956 to participate in the Buddha Jayanti celebration, he encouraged me to complete this book.

After the Tibetan revolt in 1959 and the flight of the Dalai Lama along with thousands of Tibetan refugees, I was appointed the Representative of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, with the responsibility of looking after the relief and rehabilitation of some 80,000 Tibetans seeking refuge in India, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan. In 1959 Mr. Gyalo Thondup and I appeared before the United Nations General Assembly, when the "Question of Tibet" was presented through the Sponsorship of Ireland and Malaya. Being thus occupied, I had no time to work on my manuscript. Finally, on May 15, 1963, I obtained official leave from my duties to complete this book.

First of all, I wish to express my sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to the Asia Foundation, under whose sponsorship I was able to come to the United States, and without whose help the publication of this book would have been indefinitely delayed.

"The Asia Foundation (TAF), a Central Intelligence Agency proprietary, was established in 1954 to undertake cultural and educational activities on behalf of the United States Government in ways not open to official U.S. agencies."[18]

The Asia Foundation is an outgrowth of the Committee for a Free Asia, which was founded by the U.S. government in 1951.[19] CIA funding and support of the Committee for a Free Asia and the Asia Foundation were assigned the CIA code name "Project DTPILLAR".[20]

In 1954, the Committee for a Free Asia was renamed the Asia Foundation (TAF) and incorporated in California[21] as a private, nominally non-governmental organization devoted to promoting democracy, rule of law, and market-based development in post-war Asia.

Among the original founding officers of the board, there were several presidents/chairmen of large companies including T.S. Peterson, CEO of Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Brayton Wilbur, president of Wilbur-Ellis Co., and J.D. Zellerbach, chairman of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation; four university presidents including Grayson Kirk from Columbia, J.E. Wallace Sterling of Stanford, and Raymond Allen from UCLA; prominent attorneys including Turner McBaine and A. Crawford Greene; Pulitzer Prize-winning writer James Michener; Paul Hoffman, the first administrator of the Marshall Plan in Europe; and several major figures in foreign affairs.

In 1966, Ramparts revealed that the CIA was covertly funding a number of organizations, including the Asia Foundation.[18] A commission authorized by President Johnson and led by Secretary of State Rusk determined that the Asia Foundation should be preserved and overtly funded by the US government. Following this change, the US government described the Asia Foundation as a "quasi-nongovernmental organizations" and said that "the core of its budget" was still provided by the US government.[22] The Foundation began to restructure its programming, shifting away from its earlier goals of "building democratic institutions and encouraging the development of democratic leadership" toward an emphasis on Asian development as a whole (CRS 1983).

-- The Asia Foundation, by Wikipedia

I wish to thank the staff of the Yale University Press for its kind assistance and patience, and the staff of the Yale Library, which has an extensive collection of materials On Tibet.

I must equally thank my sons and Ruskin Bond for the help given in the translation of my manuscript into English. I wish to express my appreciation to Professor Turrell Wylie, University of Washington (Seattle), who was kind enough to edit my manuscript and offer valuable suggestions. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the unfailing encouragement given me by my wife, Pema Yudon, who contributed significantly to the completion of this book.


List of Abbreviations

All original Tibetan sources cited in this volume have been assigned abbreviated titles, which are listed alphabetically in the bibliography, where the full title and author’s name are given. Frequently cited Western sources have been assigned abbreviated titles as given below. Complete citations are given in the bibliography.

Bell: Tibet: Past and Present

Bogle: Markham, Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle

Boundary: Report of the Officials of the Governments of India

Bushell: “The Early History of Tibet from Chinese Sources”

Chronicles: Petech, A Study of the Chronicles of Ladakh

Dalai: My Land and My People

Documents: (See Bibliography, Tibetan Sources) [DOCUMENTS Miscellaneous Documents of the Government of Tibet.]

Howorth: History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century

JASB: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal

JRAS: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

Li: Tibet: Today and Yesterday

Pelliot: Histoire Ancienne du Tibet

Petech: China and Tibet in the 18th Century

Phagdu: “A Short History of the House of Phagdu:

Portrait: Bell, Portrait of the Dalai Lama

Richardson: A Short History of Tibet

Rockhill: The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and Their Relations with the Manchu Emperors of China

Simla: (See Bibliography, Tibetan Sources) [SIMLA: Tibetan Documents of the Simla Convention of 1914, (preserved by Bka'-blon Khri-smon).]

Smith: The Early History of India

Teichman: Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet

Tombs: Tucci, “The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings”

TPS: Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls

Tun-Huang: Bacot, Thomas, and Toussaint, Documents de Touenhouang

Younghusband: India and Tibet




1. BCU-GNYlS Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan, Ngo-mtshar mdzad-pa bcu-gnyis (A biography of the first Dalai Lama, Dge-'dun grub-pal.

2. BEE-DUR Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho. Bee-durya ser-po (An account of the Dge-lugs-pa sect).

3. BKA'-CHEMS Bka'-chems ka-khol-ma (The last testament of Srongbtsan sgam-po). A gter-ma (cached-treasure book) discovered by Jo-bo Rje Atisha.

4. BKA-SHAG Bka'-shag Documents (A collection of treaties and agreements).

5. BKA-THANG Pad-ma bka'-thang (An account of Padma Sambhava and the monastery of Bsam-yas).

6. BSE-RU Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan. Rlangs pu-sti bse-ru (An autobiography).

7. BSHAD-SGRA Documents of Bshad-sgra (preserved at the Gong-dkar gnas-gsar estate).

8. 'BRAS-LJONGS 'Bras-ljongs rgyal-rabs (Chronicles of Sikkim).

9. 'BRUG-GI 'Brug-gi rgyal-rabs (Chronicles of Bhutan).

10. BU-STON Bu-ston rin-chen grub, Bsung-rab rin-po-che'i mdzod (A history of Buddhism and its sects in Tibet).

11. CHENPO HORGYI 'Jam-dbyangs dge-pa'i bshes-gnyen, Chen-po Hor-gyi bstan-bcos Gser-gyi deb-ther (early Mongol history).

12. CHOS-KYI-SPRIN Man-dzu shri mi-tra, Chos-kyi sprin-chen-po'i dbyangs (A biography of 'Brug-pa Ngag-dbang rnam-rgyal).

13. CHU-RTA Chu-rta Bka'-shag mgron-deb dangs-shel me-long (The Kashag Diary of the Water-Horse year, 1822).

14. 'DAB-BRGYA Pan-chen Blo-bzang ye-shes, Dad-pa'i 'dab-brgya bzhad-par byed-pa'i nyi-ma (A biography of Phur-lcog ngag-dbang byams-pa).

15. DANGS-SHEL Sgo-mang mtshan-zhabs ngag-dbang blo-bzang, Dangs-shel me-long (A biography of the twelfth Dalai Lama, 'Phrin-las rgya-mtsho).

16. DAR-HAN Dar-han mkhan-sprul. Blo-bzang 'phrin-las rnam-rgyal, Njo-mtshar nor-bu'i 'phreng-ba (A biography of the tenth Dalai Lama, Tshul-Khrims rgya-mtsho).

17. DEB-DKAR Dge-'dun chos-'phel, Deb-ther dkar-po (A short history of the reigns of Srong-btsan sgam-po and Khri-srong-lde-btsan)

18. DEB-DMAR Tshal-pa Kun-dga' rdo-rje, Deb-ther dmar-po (A history of the early kings of Tibet).

19. DEB-SNGON 'Gos Lo-tsa-wa Gzhon-nu-dpal, Deb-ther sngon-po (A history of Buddhism in Tibet).

20. DGA'-STON Dpa'-bo gtsug-Lag 'phreng-ba, Mkhas-pa'i Dga'-ston (A history of Buddhism in Tibet).

21. DMIGS-BU Bka'-drung Nor-nang, Deb-ther long-ba'i dmigs-bu (An account of the Dalai Lamas and Regents and their Seals).

22. DOCUMENTS Miscellaneous Documents of the Government of Tibet.

23. DPAG-BSAM Sum-pa mkhan-po Ye-shes dpal-'byor, Dpag-bsam ljon-bzang (A religious history of Tibet).

24. GDUNG-RABS Bsod-nams grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, SA-skya'i gdung-rabs rin-chen bang-mdzod (A history of Sa-skya).

25. GLING-BU Thub-bstan chos-'phel rgya-mtsho, Ngo-mtshar gtam -gyi gling-bu (An index to the 'Bum).

26. GOS-BZANG Du-ku-la'i gos-bzang (Volumes 1-3, An autobiography by the fifth Dalai Lama, Ngag-dbang blo-bzang rgya-mtsho; Volumes 4-6, a biography of the fifth Dalai Lama by Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho).

27. GRUB-MTHA' Thu-kwan chos-kyi nyi-ma, Grub-mtha' shel-gyi me-long (A comparative study of Buddhist sects in Tibet).

28. GSER-SDONG Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Gser-sdong 'dzam-gling rgyan-gcig dkar-chag (A list of the contents of the fifth Dalai Lama's golden mausoleum).

29. 'JAM-DBYANGS Pan-chen Bsod-nams grags-pa, 'Jam-dbyangs chos-rje bkra-shis dpal-ldan-gyi rnam-thar (A biography of 'Jam-dbyangs Chos-rje bkra-shis dpal-ldan).

30. 'JUG-NGOGS Mkhas-grub dge-legs dpal-bzang, Dad-pa'i 'jug-ngogs (A biography of Tsong-kha-pa).

31. KA-BSHAD Ser-khang Nang-pa'i phyag-drung, Ka-bshad (A versified account of the Younghusband expedition to Lhasa in 1904).

32. KHANG-GSAR Notes of the Bka'-blon, Bkra-shis khang-gsar.

33. LA-DAGS La-dags rgyal-rabs (Chronicles of Ladakh).

34. LAM-YIG Nag-mtsho Lo-tsa-ba, Rnam-thar rgyas-pa, also called Lam-yig (An account of Atisha's visit to Tibet).

35. LCANG-SKYA Lcang-skya ho-thog-thu, Dad-pa'i snye-ma (A biography of the seventh Dalai Lama, Bskal-bzang rgya-mtsho).

36. LNGA-PA Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Lnga-pa drug-par 'phos pa'i gtam (An account relating to the sixth Dalai Lama, Tshangs-dbyangs rgya-mtsho).

37. LO-TSHIG 'Jam-dbyangs bshad-pa, Lo-tshig gser-gyi nyi-ma (A chronicle of famous lamas and monasteries).

38. MA-NI Ma-ni Bka-'bum (An account of the reign of Srong-btsan sgam-po). A gter-ma discovered by Grub-thob dngos-grub.

39. MDO-MKHAR Mdo-mkhar zhabs-drung Tshe-ring dbang-rgyal, Rtog-brjod (An autobiography).

40. MDZES-RGYAN Dge-slong sbyin-pa, 'Dzam-gling mdzes-rgyan (A biography of the fourth Panchen Lama).

41. ME-LONG Sa-skya Bsod-nams rgyal-mtshan, Rgyal-rabs gsal-ba'i me-long (A history of Tibet).

42. MI-DBANG Mdo-mkhar zhabs-brung Tshe-ring-dbang-rgyal, Mi-dbang rtog-brjod (A biography of Mi-dbang Bsod-nams stobs-rgyas).

43. MTSHO-SNGON Sum-pa mkhan-po Ye-shes dpal-'byor, Mtsho-sngon lo- rgyus tshangs-glu gsar-snyan (A history of the Kokonor region).

44. NOR-BU Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag-dbang blo-bzang rgya-mtsho, Nor-bu'i 'phreng-ba (A biography of the fourth Dalai Lama, Yon-tan rgya-mtsho).

45. NYIN-'BYED Kun-mkhyen pad-ma dkar-po, Thub-bstan pad-ma rgyas- pa'i nyin-'byed (A religious history of Tibet).

46. 'OD-ZER Nyi-ma'i 'od-zer (An anonymous biography of the third Panchen Lama Dpal-ldan ye-shes).

47. PAD-DKAR Phur-lcog Ngag-dbang byams-pa, Pad-dkar 'phreng-ba (A history of the great monasteries of Tibet).

48. PAD-TSHA Yongs-'dzin Lho-pa Blo-bzang bstan-'dzin, Dad-pa'i pad-tshal bzhad-pa'i nyin-'byed (A biography of the fifth Panchen Lama, Bstan-pa'i dbang-phyug).

49. PAN-CHEN Pan-chen Blo-bzang ye-shes, 'Od-dkar can-gyi 'phreng-ba (An autobiography).

50. 'PHRENG-BA Pan-chen Ye-shes rtse-mo, Ngo-mtshar nor-bu'i 'phreng-ba (A biography of the first Dalai Lama).

51. PHUR-LCOG Phur-lcog yongs-'dzin Byams-pa tshul-khrims, Rin-po-che'i 'phreng-ba (A Biography of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thub-bstan rgya-mtsho).

52. RAB-GSAL Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Rab-gsal gser-gyi snye-ma (A biography of the sixth Dalai Lama, Tshangs-dbyangs rgya-mtsho).

53. RDO-RING Bka'-blon Bstan-'dzin dpal-'byor rdo-ring (or) Dga'-bzhi, Zol-med Gtam-gyi Rol-mo (An autobiography).

54. RDZOGS-LDAN Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag-dbang blo-bzang rgya-mtsho, Rdzogs-Idan gzhon-nu'i dga'-ston (A history of Tibet).

55. RNAM-THAR Dka'-chen ye-shes rgyal-mtshan, Lam-rim bla-ma rgyud- pa'i rnam-thar thub-bstan mdzes-rgyan (A collection of short biographies of famous Lam-rim lamas).

56. ROL-MO Dar-han mkhan-sprul Blo-bzang 'phrin-las rnam-rgyal, Ngo-mtshar lha'i-rol-mo (A biography of the eleventh Dalai Lama, Mkhas-grub rgya-mtsho).

57. SA-'BRUG Sa-'brug Bka'-shag mgron-deb (The Kashag Diary of the Earth-Dragon year, 1808).

58. SBA-BZHED Sba Gsal-snang, Sba-bzhed (A religious history of the reign of Khri-srong lde-btsan).

59. SHEL-BRAG Bka'-thang shel-brag (An account of Padma Sambhava and the monastery of Bsam-yas).

60. SHING-'BRUG Shing-'brug Bka'-shag mgron-deb (The Kashag Diary of the Wood-Dragon year, 1844).

61. SHING-RTA Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag-dbang blo-bzang rgya-mtsho, Dngos-grub shing-rta (A biography of the third Dalai Lama, Bsod-nams rgya-mtsho).

62. SIMLA Tibetan Documents of the Simla Convention of 1914 (preserved by Bka'-blon Khri-smon).

63. SLE-LUNG Sle-lung rje-drung blo-bzang 'phrin-las (An autobiography by Sle-lung rje-drung).

64. SPYOD-TSHUL Pan-chen Blo-bzang chos-rgyan, Rang-gi spyod-tshul gsal-ba ston-pa (An autobiography by the first Panchen lama).

65. THANG-STONG 'Gyur-med bde-chen, Nor-bu'i me-long (A biography of the great saint, Thang-stong rgyal-po).

66. THUGS-RJE Kun-mkhyen pad-ma dkar-po, Thugs-rje chen-po'i zlos-gar (An autobiography).

67. YANGS-RGYAN Nag-shod bla-ma Bstan-'dzin shes-rab, 'Dzam -gling tha-gru yangs-pa'i rgyan (A biography of the eighth Dalai Lama, 'Jam-dpal rgya-mtsho).

68. YID-'PHROG Rgyud-smad dbu-mdzad 'Jam-dpal tshul-khrims and Bde-yangs rab-'byams Skal-bzang chos-'phel, Dad- pa'i yid-'phrog (A biography of the ninth Dalai Lama, Lung-rtog rgya-mtsho).

69. YIG-TSHANG Stag-sna'i yig-tshang mkhas-pa dga'-byed (An anonymous short history of Sa-skya).

70. ZLA-BA Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag-dbang blo-bzang rgya-mtsho, Zla-ba 'bum-phrag 'char-ba'i rdzing-bu (The teachings and counsels of the fifth Dalai Lama).


1. Ahmed, Zahiruddin, China and Tibet, 1708-1919, Oxford, 1960.

2. Aitchison, Sir Charles, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, Vols. 12 and 14, Calcutta, 1929-31.

3. Aoki, Bunkyo, Study on Eaarly Tibetan Chronicles, Tokyo, 1955.

4. J. Bacot, F. W. Thomas, and Ch. Toussaint, Documents de Touen-houang, relatifs a l'Histoire du Tibet, Paris, 1946.

5. Barthold, W., Encylopedia of Islam, 4 (S-Z) Leiden, 1913-36.

6. Bell, Charles, Portrait of the Dalai Lama, London, 1946.

7. ---, Tibet: Past and Present, Oxford, 1914.

8. Bretschneider. E., On the Knowledge possessed by the Ancient Chinese of the Arabs, London, 1871.

9. Bushell, S. W., "The Early History of Tibet from Chinese Sources," JRAS, New Series, 12 (1880), 435-541.

10. Cutting, Suydam, The Fire Ox and Other Years, New York, 1940.

11. Dalai Lama (14th]. My Land and My People, New York. 1962.

12. Dalai Lama and India, A. V. Rau, ed., New Delhi, 1959.

13. Das, Sarat Chandra. "Contributions on the Religion, History, etc., of Tibet," JASB, 51-1 (1882),1-75.

14. ---, Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet, London, 1902.

15. ---, "The Monasteries of Tibet," JASB, New Series, I (April 1905).

16. ---. "A Short History of the House of Phagdu, which ruled over Tibet on the decline of Sakya till 1432 A.D.," JASB, New Series, I (August 1905).

17. Dodwell, H. H., ed., The Cambridge History of India, 6, Cambridge, 1932.

18. Eliot. Charles, Hinduism and Buddhism, 3 vols, London. 1954.

19. Fillipo de Filippi, Editor, An Account of Tibet: the Travels of Ippolito Desideri, London, 1932.

20. Fisher, Margaret, Leo Rose, and Robert Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground, New York, 1963.

21. Francke, A. H., Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Tibetan Text, 2, Cacutta, 1926.

22. Frankfurter, Oscar, "Narratives of the Revolutions which took place in Siam in 1688," Siam Society, V-4 (Bangkok, 1908), 5-38.

23. Haarh, Erik, "The Identity of Tsu-chih-chien, the Tibetan 'King' who died in 804 AD," Acta Orientalia, 25, 1-2. (1963), 121-70.

24. Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs, London, 1956.

25. Hoffmann, Helmut, "Die Qarlug in der Tibetischen Literatur," Oriens, 3 (Leiden, 1950) , 190-208.

26. ---, The Religions of Tibet, New York, 1961.

27. Holdich, Sir Thomas H., Tibet, the Mysterious, New York, 1906.

28. Howorth, Henry H., History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century, London, 1876.

29. International Commission of Jurists, Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic, Geneva, 1960.

30. Kawaguehi, Ekai, Three Years in Tibet, London, 1909.

31. Li Fang-kuei, "The Inscription of the Sino-Tibetan Treaty of 821-822," T'oung Pao, 44, 1-3 (1956). 1-99.

32. Li Tieh-tseng, Tibet: Today and Yesterday, New York, 1960.

33. Ling Nai-min, Tibetan Sourcebook, Hong Kong, 1964.

34. Ludwig, Ernest, Visit of the Teshoo Lama to Pelting (Ch'ien Lung's Inscription) , Peking, 1904.

35. Macdonald, David, The Land of the Lama, London, 1929.

36. ---, Twenty Years in Tibet, London, 1932.

37. Markham, Clements R., Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa, London, 1879.

38. Martin, Desmond, The Rise of Chingis Khan and His Conquest of North China, Baltimore, 1950.

39. Papers relating to Tibet (Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty) , London Cd. 1920 (1904), Cd. 2054 (1904), Cd. 2370 (1905).

40. Pelliot, Paul, Histoire Ancienne du Tibet, Paris, 1961.

41. Petech, Luciano, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century, Leiden, 1950.

42. ---, A Study on the Chronicles of Ladakh, Calcutta, 1939.

43. Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (February 1961).

44. Richardson, Hugh E., "The Karma-pa Sect. A Historical Note," JRAS (October 1958), 139- 64.

45. ---, A Short History of Tibet, New York, 1962.

46. Rockhill, W. W., The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and Their Relations with the Manchu Emperors of China, Leyden, 1910.

47. Roerich, George N., The Blue Annals, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1949, 1953.

48. ___ , Trails to Inmost Asia, New Haven, 1931.

49. Sandberg, Graham, The Exploration of Tibet, Calcutta, 1904.

50. Sen, Chanakya. Tibet Disappears, Bombay, 1960.

51. Shen, Tsung-lien and Liu, Shen-chi, Tibet and the Tibetans, Palo Alto, 1953.

52. Smith, Vincent A., The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, Oxford, 1904.

53. Stein, R. A., Une Chronique Ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bzed, Paris, 1961.

54. Teichman, Eric, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet, Cambridge, 1922.

55. Tucci, Giuseppe, "The Symbolism of the Temples of Bsam-yas," East and West, VI-4 (Rome, 1956), 279-81.

56. ---, "The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings," Serie Orientale Roma, I, Rome, 1950.

57. ---, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 3 vols., Rome, 1949.

58. Williams, E. T., Tibet and Her Neighbors, Berkeley, 1937.

59. Wood, W. A. R., A History of Siam from the Earliest Times to the Year A.D. 1781, London, 1926.

60. Wylie, Turrell, "A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 22 (December 1959), 261-67.

61. Vira, Raghu, Tibet: A Souvenir, New Delhi, 1960.

62. Younghusband, Sir Francis, India and Tibet, London, 1910.

63. Yu Dawchyuan, "Love Songs of the Sixth Dalai Lama," Academia Sinica Monograph, Series A, No. 5, Peking, 1930.
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:27 am

Part 2 of 4

Chapter 14. The 1910 Chinese Invasion of Lhasa and Tibet's Struggle to Maintain Her Independence

In 1896 some of the territories of the Nyarong governor were taken from him by the Chakla chieftain in eastern Tibet. The governor demanded the return of the territories, but the Chakla chieftain was backed by the Chinese from Szechuan, who sent him troops under an officer named Tang-li. The Chinese captured a considerable amount of Tibetan territory in eastern Tibet, and the chieftain of Derge and his entire, family were taken prisoner and sent to Szechuan. The Derge chieftain's father and mother died in prison; but intervention by the Tibetan government resulted in the release of two of his sons. Authority over Derge was conferred on the eldest son by the Tibetans and after negotiations with the Chinese had been concluded, T'ang-li's troops were withdrawn.1

Similar local clashes occurred during the next few years. In 1903 the Chinese began to establish themselves with troops in the territories of Garthar (where the seventh Dalai Lama had lived for several years), Jun Dondupling, and other places.2 Meanwhile, the new deputy Amban, Feng-chien, on his way to Lhasa, stopped over at Bah. He commented on the large number of monks in the local monastery and suggested that some of them would be more useful if they returned to agricultural pursuits. The monks took offense at the Amban's remarks and murdered him and his escort.3 Chinese troops were dispatched from Szechuan, under General Ma Ti-t'ai,4 to deal with the Bah monks, who, having no nearby Tibetan troops to support them, were outnumbered and forced to surrender. The Chinese general arrested 312 monks whom he suspected of having had a hand in the Amban's murder. The monks were executed, their property confiscated, and some of the monastery buildings put to the torch. Ma Ti-t'ai then returned to Szechuan.

On the pretext of continuing investigations into the affair. Chinese troops again come to Bah in 1905 under the command of Chao Erh-feng. Four monks were killed and the monastery heavily fined.5 The monks of the neighboring Lithang monastery protested against the unfair treatment of the Bah monks, who had already been punished. Chao Erh-feng summoned the two Tibetan government representatives from Lithang and asked them if it was true that the Lithang monks were objecting to his methods. When the two Tibetans confirmed the report, Chao had them executed on the spot. This quelled the aggressiveness of the Lithang monks, but the people of nearby Chating began making preparations to assist Bah. When he learned of this, Chao sent his troops to Chating and 1,210 monks and laymen were killed.

In June of 1906, Chao Erh-feng's troops descended on the Gongkar Namling monastery.6 Four monks went out to offer the monastery's surrender, but they were executed on the spot. The others fled into the forest, leaving behind two aged monks and three kitchen attendants, all of whom were slaughtered. Similar attacks were perpetrated on the Yangteng monastery, where forty-eight monks were killed; the rest escaped into the forests. Both monasteries were looted of their gold shrines, silver ornaments, and stocks of grain. The Buddhist scriptures were burned. Most of the loot was sent to Szechuan, where the brass and copper objects were melted down to make coins. A deputy commander of Chao's raided the Lagang monastery, where twenty-five monks were killed in the fighting and nine of their leaders later executed. The Chinese general soon became known among the Tibetans as "Chao the Butcher."

It was proposed by Chao Erh-feng that the area from Tachienlu westward to Kongpo Gyamda be made into a new province of China. Kongpo Gyamda is a village about 120 miles east of Lhasa. Although never subjugated and integrated into the Chinese provincial system, the area proposed by Chao appears on twentieth-century Chinese maps as the province of Hsi~k'ang.7 In 1907 Chao sent troops to Tsa Menkhung in southern Kham, where thousands of loads of grain were taken from the inhabitants without payment being made. In 1908 Chao, reinforced with troops from Szechuan, declared that since the Tibetans were in contact with the British, he would establish a local government at Chamdo and then march to Lhasa.8

In Lhasa, a letter written by the Regent and the Kashag to the Manchu Emperor protesting Chao Erh-feng's depredations was handed over to the Amban, Lien-yu, who refused to forward it to Peking. Because the Amban persisted in refusing to forward the letter, the Regent, Ganden Tri Rimpoche, assumed that the Amban and Chao Erh-feng were acting in agreement, probably without the Emperor's knowledge; therefore, the Kashag sent a representative to Calcutta to telegraph the Chinese Foreign Office and Military Department (Chun-chi-pu ) at Peking, asking them to order Chao to withdraw from Kham. An appeal was also made to the British to use their good offices on this matter with China.9

There was no reply from Peking. Meanwhile, the Chinese garrison at Lhasa was reinforced with six thousand troops and the Amban wrote to the Kashag, informing it that all troops in Tibet were now to be under the command of Chung-yin, a Manchu who had been appointed commander-in -chief. The Kashag refused to acknowledge the Amban's order. Tibetan troops outnumbered the Amban's garrison in Lhasa; but because the Dalai Lama was still in Chinese territory, the Tibetan government had to tolerate numerous acts of aggression in Kham out of concern for the Dalai Lama's personal safety. The Manchu Emperor was weak and could no longer control his provinces, whose governors began making their own decisions and policies. In 1909 the Tibetan government learned that a large Chinese force was being sent to Tibet to police the trade marts, as provided under the Trade Regulations signed at Calcutta in April 1908. The Tibetans objected to the Chinese policing of the trade marts and offered to provide troops themselves, if any were needed. The Kashag made several protests to the Amban, demanding the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Tibetan territory; the Amban's reply was to bring in the troops sooner than planned.

Anxious that the Dalai Lama should arrive in Lhasa before the Chinese troops, the Tibetans sent a representative, Khenchung Chamba Choszang, to Kham with orders to halt the Chinese troops, until Peking should reply to the telegram sent from Calcutta. The Chinese troops had advanced four days' march from Chamdo. Khenchung met them at Tar Dzong and delivered his instructions for them to halt; but the Chinese ignored his orders and placed him under arrest. The Chinese were well equipped with modern arms; however, they carried no food supplies, preferring to halt every fifteen miles or so and help themselves to whatever the local inhabitants could be forced to provide. When they arrived at Kongpo Gyamda, Khenchung Chamba Choszang and eight of his escort were executed on the orders of the Amban.

The Dalai Lama arrived back in Lhasa in December of 1909. Representatives of the Tsongdu were asked to meet the Chinese army and attempt to detain it. Fearing execution, they took with them a deputy of the Nepalese representative in Lhasa and a leader of the Kashmiri Muslims. The deputy Amban, accompanied by the Nepalese representative went to the Dalai Lama and assured him that the Chinese army was intended merely to police the trade marts. It would be dispersed as soon as it reached Lhasa and would not interfere in the internal affairs of Tibet. As security, he offered to give the Dalai Lama a letter to this effect. The letter arrived the next day. It contained the general assurances already given by the Amban; but reference to the "internal affairs of Tibet" was omitted and instead, it guaranteed that there would be no interference in the "religious affairs of the Dalai Lama."

On the third day of the first Tibetan month of the Iron-Dog year (1910), the Chinese army, under the command of Chung-yin, reached the banks of the Kyichu river, where it was met by the Amban's bodyguard. At three o'clock in the afternoon, the Chinese marched through Lhasa, firing on members of the Lhasa police, killing or wounding a number of them. They also fired on the Jokhang temple, and then, passing through the streets, attacked Teji Phunkhang, the head of the Foreign Bureau and organizer of the Monlam festival who was on his way to the temple with his colleagues. Phunkhang's horse was killed under him. He himself was arrested, beaten, stripped of his ornaments, and taken to the Amban's residence. His colleague, Tsedron Jamyang Gyaltsen, and Phunkhang's personal servant were killed.

The Chinese then made their presence further known by firing at the Potala. The Dalai Lama immediately appointed a new Regent, Tri Rimpoche Ngawang Lozang Tsemonling, and provided him with an assistant named Khenche Khenrab Phumsok Neushag. He told them he would have to leave for Yatung, near the Sikkimese border and instructed them to take over his responsibilities. As soon as it grew dark, the Dalal Lama, accompanied by his three Prime Ministers, the council minister, Kalon Serchung, two deputy ministers, Kalon Tenzin Wangpo and Kalon Samdrup Phodrang, and the Medical Adviser, Chamba Thubwang Ngoshi, crossed the Ramagang river and journeyed westward in the direction of Chaksam. (When the present Dalai Lama fled during the Tibetan revolt in 1959, he crossed the same river but then traveled southward.)

The next day, the Amban learned of the Dalai Lama's flight and asked his troops for volunteers to bring back the head of the Dalai Lama. Wu, a Chinese officer,10 and a Chinese-Tibetan named Gyalgodong, volunteered. They were given three hundred cavalrymen, with whom they pursued the Dalai Lama's party.

On the evening of his arrival at Chaksam, the Dalai Lama received a message that his pursuers were only ten miles away. He immediately left for the monastery Yardok Samding, the seat of the abbess Dorje Phagmo, who is one of the few Tibetan Buddhist nuns considered to be an incarnation. (Reincarnations of Dorje Phagmo are selected in much the same manner as those of incarnate lamas.) A few Tibetan troops remained behind with the attendant, Dazang Dadul, to delay the Chinese. At sunrise of the next day, the Chinese cavalry arrived at Chaksam, where they were attacked by Dazang Dadul's small force. The Chinese were held up for two days and suffered a number of casualties. Dadul was rewarded in later years for his heroism at Chaksam.

From the Samding monastery, the Dalai Lama sent a message to Basil Gould, then British Trade Agent at Gyantse, asking for asylum in India if necessary. The Dalai Lama then journeyed on to Phari, where he was visited by the commander of a small contingent of twenty-five Chinese troops stationed at Yatung, one day's journey south of Phari. The commander asked the Dalai Lama not to cross over into India and offered to write a full report to the Manchu Emperor and the Amban at Lhasa. The Dalai Lama said that he would consider the request when he arrived in Yatung.

The Dalai Lama was receiving daily reports that the Chinese were still in pursuit from the north. As he continued his trip, almost the entire population of Dromo (Chumbi Valley) and Phari turned out to accompany him to Yatung as bodyguards. The Chinese were warned not to appear on the streets of Yatung on the day the Dalai Lama passed through. Meanwhile, a military officer and the British Trade Agent arrived at Phari from Gyantse to accompany the huge party to Yatung. The party traveled without further interference from the Chinese troops. After passing through the gates, the Dalai Lama was welcomed by David Macdonald, the British Trade Agent at Yatung, and spent the night at his residence. Macdonald had been to Lhasa with the Younghusband Mission in 1904. He spoke and wrote Tibetan very well, and gained the friendship and goodwill of many Tibetans.11

The Dalai Lama's original plan had been to remain at Yatung and from there conduct negotiations with Peking, but when he heard that Chinese troops had arrived at Phari, only one day away, he finally decided to cross over into India. Before leaving Yatung, the Dalal Lama left a letter with Macdonald to be forwarded to the British officials in India. In view of the fact that the British had invaded Lhasa a few short years earlier, causing the Dalai Lama to flee to Mongolia, the contents of the letter he now sent the British are interesting enough to warrant reproducing it in full. It read:

The Chinese have been greatly oppressing the Tibetan people at Lhasa. Mounted infantry arrived there. They fired on the inhabitants, killing and wounding them. I was obliged, together with my six ministers, to make good my escape. My intention now is to go to India for the purpose of consulting the British government. Since my departure from Lhasa I have been greatly harassed on the road by Chinese troops. A force of two hundred Chinese Mongol infantry were behind me at Chak-sam. and I left a party of my soldiers to hold them back. A small fight took place there, in the course of which two Tibetans and seventy Chinese were killed. I have left the Regent and acting ministers at Lhasa, but I and the ministers who accompany me have brought our seals with us. I have been receiving every courtesy from the British government, for which I am grateful. I now look to you for protection, and I trust that the relations between the British government and Tibet will be that of a father to his children. Wishing to be guided by you, I hope to give full information on my arrival in India.12

Traveling via the Dzalep-la pass, the Dalai Lama arrived in Kalimpong, where he was the guest of Raja Kazi Ugyen of Bhutan. The house in which the Dalai Lama lived is known today as Bhutan House, and to the Tibetans, it is still called Migyur Ngonga Phodrang, meaning "Palace of Unchanging Delight," because of its association with the thirteenth Dalai Lama.

After a week at Kalimpong, the Dalai Lama went to Darjeeling, where he stayed in a house called Padabuk. There he was visited by Charles Bell, the Political Officer of Sikkim, who acted as his liaison with the government of India. The Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling looked after all aspects of the Dalai Lama's security.

Several telegrams were sent to Peking to request the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Tibet; but these were studiously ignored. Moreover, reports appeared in Indian newspapers that the Manchus had deposed the Dalai Lama and were choosing his successor by a lottery. The Manchu Amban circulated similar reports in Lhasa. The Dalai Lama then decided never to have direct negotiations with the Manchus or the Chinese; instead, he invoked one of the articles of the 1904 Lhasa Convention and appealed to the British to intercede on his behalf. The Dalai Lama, on his arrival in Calcutta, received a seventeen-gun salute in his honor and was escorted in a regal carriage to Hastings House.

The Dalai Lama met the Viceroy, Lord Minto, on March 14, 1910, and gave him an account of Chinese deceit and aggrandizement in Tibet. The following are extracts from the private interview as recorded by Butler, who began his account thus: "His Excellency, the Viceroy, received the Dalai Lama in private audience at Government House, Calcutta, this afternoon at five p.m. There were also present Mr. Bell, Political Officer, Sikkim, who acted as interpreter, and myself." The account went on to say that after compliments, in the course of which the Dalai Lama expressed his cordial thanks for the hospitality extended to him and the kindness of his reception, His Holiness said that he had had a trying time in his journey from Lhasa and was in danger from the Chinese soldiers who pursued him. At the time that he left Lhasa, there were 500 of the old Chinese troops and 40 newly-arrived ones, who were the advance guard of a force of 2,000 men then only two days' march from Lhasa. In all, some 1,700 troops had come into Lhasa and its neighborhood lately, according to the information he had received. That total number of Chinese troops in Tibet was not required for Tibet alone. The Chinese had designs on Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, which they intended to subdue, and that would destroy the last vestiges of the Lamaist religion. The Chinese had more than once interposed to prevent amicable direct relations between the Tibetan and British governments. The Sikkim dispute of 1888 and the Younghusband mission of 1904 were due entirely to the actions of the Chinese. While in Peking, His Holiness had asked the British Minister to eliminate the harmful intervention of the Chinese.

The Dalai Lama went on to tell the Viceroy that under the Trade Regulations of 1908, direct relations between the British and Tibetan governments had been assured, and he was appealing that the rights of the Tibetans in this regard should be observed. He asked that he might be restored to the position of the fifth Dalai Lama, who had negotiated with the Emperor of China as the ruler of a friendly state, and he asked that the Chinese troops be withdrawn.

When questioned by the Viceroy as to whether he knew the terms of the treaties, in which the British government had entered with China and Russia, His Holiness replied that he was studying them.

The Tibetan government claimed the right of direct dealing with the British government, and it did not recognize the 1890 and 1906 Conventions, in which it had played no part. Moreover, the Dalai Lama said he had had no communications from the Chinese at Lhasa since he had left Phari. He would not return to Lhasa under the present political conditions there, as the promises made to him had been disregarded: He would not trust the written word of the Peking government as it had violated the promises given him by the late Empress Dowager.

When questioned by the Viceroy as to what he intended to do if he did not return to Lhasa, the Dalai Lama replied that he could not say at the moment, but that unless the matter was satisfactorily settled, he would not return to Lhasa. He denied that he had intrigued against China. He had only been two months in Lhasa before he fled. The Amban was altogether hostile. The Dalai Lama had come away with his ministers and the seals of office. With the Regent, whom he had appointed, he had left the seal that was used in the signing of the 1904 Convention, but his own seal he had with him. Moreover, he had had no contact with the Regent since he left. The Chinese intercepted all official letters and he had no official communication with Tibet. Some private letters had come through, but any communication had to be secret.

During the interview, the Dalai Lama sought to clarify the issue of Dorjieff, the Buriat Mongol, who had visited the Czar of Russia. His Holiness stated that Dorjieff was now in his own country. He had been one of seven assistants to his chief spiritual adviser and had never had anything to say except about spiritual matters.

At the end of the interview, the Dalai Lama said that he had made his appeal and asked what would be the answer. His Excellency, the Viceroy, said that he was very glad to have the opportunity of entertaining His Holiness and of meeting him. He had given instructions that every consideration should be shown to him, but he said that political questions of importance required due consideration and that he could not say more than that he would communicate His Holiness' remarks to His Majesty's government. The Dalai Lama then repeated his expressions of gratitude to the Viceroy and took his leave.

The Viceroy suggested that in the meantime the Dalai Lama enjoy the sights of Calcutta. While showing the Dalai Lama every consideration, the Viceroy was careful not to commit himself to any promises of help, perhaps because he was not very clear as to Britain's own treaty obligations with China and Russia. After spending a few days in Calcutta, the Dalai Lama returned to Darjeeling.

Only two of the original council ministers, Kalon Lozang Trinley and Kalon Tsarong, were still in Lhasa. The Dalai Lama, at the time of his departure, had instructed the Regent Tri Rimpoche to appoint Dekyi Lingpa and Khenchung Gyaltsen Phuntsok as deputy Kalon. The Chinese deposed Lozang Trinley and disqualified Dekyi Lingpa and Gyaltsen Phuntsok, forbidding them to enter the Kashag. Tsarong was the only one kept in office. His new colleagues, appointed by the Chinese, were Tenzin Chosdrak, Rampa, and Lanthongpa. The Regent's assistant, Khenrab Phuntsok Neushag, was arrested by the Chinese and condemned to death; but on the appeal of the Regent, his life was spared and he was dispatched in chains to Tachienlu.

In Lhasa, Tibetan police were replaced by Chinese. The Dalai Lama's personal effects, which were still on their way back from China, were confiscated at Nagchukha. His property in the Potala and Norbulingka (the summer palace), as well as the vast treasury of the Tibetan government, were removed by the Chinese. The Lhasa armory and magazines were emptied, the mint and ammunition factory seized, and the houses of those ministers who had fled with the Dalai Lami systematically pillaged. The property of the ex-Regent Demo, who had been found guilty of plotting against the Dalai Lama in 1899, was restored to his family.

Many districts that had formerly sent their revenue direct to Lhasa began to send it to the Dalai Lama at Darjeeling through merchants and travelers. To put a stop to this, the Chinese set up check-posts along the border and searched all travelers to India. Before long, Tibetans in Lhasa began defacing and removing posters put up by the Chinese. Monastic representatives and Tibetan officials protested to the Manchu Amban against the deposition of the Dalai Lama. Neither the Tibetan people nor their government would cooperate with the Chinese dictatorship at Lhasa. In eastern and southern Tibet, Chinese nationals were frequently attacked.

The Chinese, now realizing that they had made a mistake in declaring the Dalai Lama deposed, instructed the Amban to send Lo Ti-t'ai to Darjeeling to offer the Dalai Lama the restoration of his titles and to request him to return to Tibet. The Chinese official arrived in India in September 1910.

In reply to Lo Ti-t'ai, the Dalai Lama wrote the following letter:

To Lo Ti- t'ai from the Dalai Lama: On the tenth day of the ninth month of the Iron-Dog year [1910], I received through you an urgent message from the Peking political and military departments asking me to return to Lhasa. In reply, I have the following to say: The Manchu Emperors have always shown great care for the welfare of the successive Dalai Lamas, and the Dalai Lamas have reciprocated these feelings of friendship. We have always had each other's best interests at heart. The Tibetan people have never had any evil designs on the Chinese.

In the Wood-Dragon year [1904], when the British expedition arrived in Tibet, I did not consider taking any assistance except from Peking. When at Peking, I met the Emperor and his aunt, and they showed me great sympathy. The Emperor committed himself to taking care of the welfare of Tibet. On the strength of the Emperor's word, I returned to Tibet, only to find that on our eastern borders, large bodies of Chinese troops had massed and many of our subjects had been killed. Monasteries were destroyed and the people's rights suppressed. I am sure that you are fully aware of this.

Furthermore, the Amban at Lhasa, Lien-yu, had been reinforcing his troops with the object of occupying Lhasa. On several occasions, I objected to this; but he turned a deaf ear to my appeals. When the troops were on their way to Lhasa, I sent my representative, Khenchung, to meet them and explain my position; but the military officers executed Khenchung and seized his possessions.

While on their march, Chinese troops had exploited the people and the monasteries to such an extent that my subjects and the monastery monks requested permission to retaliate. Had they done so, it would not have been impossible for us to defeat your army, owing to our knowledge of the terrain. However, a fight by my subjects against your troops might have been construed as against the Manchu Emperor. I, therefore, asked my ministers to negotiate with your officers and to protect your representatives in Lhasa. I also wrote to the Emperor asking him to withdraw these troops. All this is clear in the records held by both the Chinese and the Tibetans. I have several times explained this by wire to the Peking Political Department; but I have received no reply.

At Nagchukha, on my way from China to Lhasa, I wrote several notes to the Amban, informing him that China and Tibet must continue their long-standing friendship; but, instead of listening to my appeal, he insisted on bringing more troops to Lhasa. The advance of the Chinese troops coincided with the Monlam festival being held at Lhasa, at which thousands of monks from different monasteries had come together. In order to avoid a clash the Nepalese representative at Lhasa called on the Manchu Amban to prevent any trouble from arising. The Amban refused to do anything about it; instead, he sent his bodyguard out to meet the advancing troops. On the way, they fired on the Lhasa police, killing some of them. They also fired on the Jokhang temple and the Potala palace.

The eleventh Dalai Lama's nephew, Teji Phunkhang, and Tsedron Jamyang Gyaltsen, were Tibetan government officials assigned to administer the Monlam festival. On their way to the Jokhang temple, they were met by the troops, who fired on them. Tsedron Jamyang and Teji Phunkhang's servant and horse were killed. Teji Phunkhang was then beaten and taken away to the military camp. The people of Lhasa were so outraged that they wanted to take revenge; but I restrained, them from doing so. I still hoped we could negotiate with China and avoid unnecessary bloodshed, Not knowing what would happen if I were captured, I appointed a representative in Lhasa to continue negotiations and I then came to the border of Tibet and India in order to personally conduct negotiations with China.

My ministers had appealed to me to m to remain in Lhasa; but had I done so, a situation similar to the Muslim invasion of India might well have taken place, which resulted in many religious institutions being destroyed. As I did not want this to happen in Tibet, I came here especially to negotiate for my country, not caring what hardships I might have to endure. When I arrived at Phari, I was asked by the Chinese official of Yatung to remain at the Phari monastery and negotiate with Peking and with the Manchu Amban in Lhasa by wire. I thought this arrangement would be ideal; but when troops arrived to take me alive or dead, I had no choice but to cross the Indian border.

At Kalimpong, I came to know that the Manchu Emperor had already issued orders that I had been deposed from office. This was published in Indian newspapers, and even in Lhasa, posters were put up announcing that I was now an ordinary person and that a new Dalai Lama would soon be chosen. Since the Emperor has done everything on the recommendation of the Manchu Amban in Lhasa, without considering the independence of Tibet and the religious relationship between our two countries, I feel there is no further use in my negotiating directly with China. I have lost confidence in China and in finding any solution in consultation with the Chinese.

I have contacted the British, because the 1904 Convention permits us to deal directly with them. The Chinese are responsible for this action of mine.

During my stay in India, Amban Lien-yu has moved Chinese troops all over Tibet and has exploited Tibetan subjects to extremes. They have stopped my supplies and censored my letters from Tibet. They have sealed the treasury in Lhasa, emptied our armory, and seized our mint factories. Khenche Khenrab Phuntsok, assistant to my representative at Lhasa, aged seventy years, who was completely innocent, was imprisoned without cause and sent to Tachienlu. Judicial cases that had already been decided were reopened. Tibetan government property and the property of Tibetan officials and monasteries have been illegally seized.

You are fully aware of this inexcusable illegal action taken by your troops; yet, you inform me and my ministers that the situation in Tibet is peaceful and that status quo is being maintained. I know that this has been said to persuade me to return and I also know that it is false.

Because of the above, it is not possible for China and Tibet to have the same relationship as before. In order for us to negotiate, a third party, is necessary; therefore, we should both request the British government to act as an intermediary. Our future policy will be based on the outcome of discussions between ourselves, the Chinese, and the British. Are you able to agree to the participation of the British in these discussions? If so, please let me know.

In case you are not agreeable to this, I am handing you a letter containing the above facts, written in both the Manchu and Tibetan languages, which I would like you to forward to the Emperor. Please explain carefully to the Emperor the contents of my letter. (Dated) Thirteenth day of the ninth month of the Iron-Dog year [1910].


That winter, the Dalai Lama made a tour of the Buddhist pilgrimage places. He visited Lumbini, Bodh Gaya, Sarnath, and Kushinagara, where the Lord Buddha was born, became enlightened, delivered his first sermon, and died.

Meanwhile the officials of the Panchen Lama in Tibet, hoping to use the Panchen for their own purposes, invited him to Lhasa in January 1911. He stayed first in the Jokhang temple and then moved to the Norbulingka (summer palace of the Dalai Lama). This annoyed the Tibetan people, who became even more outraged when the Panchen Lama began to fraternize with the Manchu Amban in public, accompanying him to parties and the theatre.

During the Butter-lamp festival, the Panchen Lama and the Amban placed themselves in sedan chairs and were taken in procession around Lhasa in the same manner in which the Dalai Lama was normally escorted. The Lhasa populace participated in the ceremony, but only to the extent of dropping mud and old socks on to the heads of the Panchen and the Amban as they passed. It was also the occasion for a new Lhasa street-song:

The slovenly attired monk
On the roof of the Jokhang,
Would have been a thief
If it were not for the arrival of the dawn.

"Dawn" in the song refers to the Tibetan resistance movement, which prevented the Panchen Lama from accepting the Dalai Lama's administrative duties, which the people suspected the Chinese were preparing to offer him. From the private correspondence that passed between the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, it is evident that the Panchen held the Dalai Lama in high regard; he was involved in this unpleasantness only because of the collaboration of his officials with the Chinese. Since that time, ill feeling has continued to exist between the Lhasa officials and the Panchen's Tashilhunpo officials.

Meanwhile, back in Lhasa, things were not going well for the Chinese. They could get no cooperation from the people, the Tibetan parliament was proving obstructive, while in parts of the country a resistance movement calling itself "The Dawn" had begun to harass them. When the Chinese invited the Panchen Lama to Lhasa, hoping to use his authority, angry Tibetans expressed their disapproval by dropping old socks and mud on his head as he and the Chinese amban rode through the streets together. Taxes soon began to find their way to Darjeeling, where the Dalai Lamas was now living, instead of to Lhasa, and the Chinese had to search Tibetans leaving for India to prevent this. Finally, the Chinese became so desperate that they were forced to approach the Dalai Lama and plead with him to return, but in vain.

-- Trespassers on the Roof of the World: The Race for Lhasa, by Peter Hopkirk

The Dawn Society

Founder-editor of the Dawn magazine (1897–1913), an organ of Indian Nationalism, in 1902 he organised the "Dawn Society" of culture, to protest against the Report of the Indian Universities Commission, representing the inadequate university education imposed by the Government to fabricate clerks for the merchant offices. "The cry for thorough overhauling of the whole system of University education was in the air."[4]. In 1889, he formulated the scheme for national education.[5]

Dawn occupied an apartment on the first floor of the present Vidyasagar College (formerly known as the Metropolitan Institution: its Principal, Nagendranath Ghosh was the President, and Satish its general secretary). The Dawn Society was "functioning (…) as a training ground of youths and a nursery of patriotism, became in 1905 one of the most active centres for the propagation of Boycott-Swadeshi ideologies..."[6]

In tune with the programme of a new pedagogy introduced by Sri Aurobindo, the Society's object was to draw the attention of the students to the needs of the country, to love Mother India, to cultivate their moral character, to inspire original thinking. It had a weekly session for a "general training course". One of the members, Benoy Kumar Sarkar, considering having lived significantly thanks to Satish Chandra's influence, would remember his ardent message of patriotism and philanthropy rousing the youth to dedicated service; he would also write about the method of Pandit Nilakantha Goswami's explaining the Bhagavad Gita, impressing on the listeners' mind the futility of life and death, the insignificance of the body: the sole thing that counts is Duty, the right Action.[7]

Among active members of the "Dawn" were Sister Nivedita, Bagha Jatin (Jatin Mukherjee), Rajendra Prasad (first President of India), Haran Chakladar, Radha Kumud Mukherjee, Kishorimohan Gupta (principal, Daulatpur College), Atulya Chatterjee, Rabindra Narayan Ghosh, Benoykumar Sarkar, all future celebrities. One day, Satish Chandra heard an inner voice uttering firmly: "God exists."[8]

-- Satish Chandra Mukherjee, by Wikipedia

Among the Chinese troops in Lhasa, there were many who had been enlisted in Szechuan. Some were ordinary soldiers, while others belonged to the Ko-lao-hui, a secret society of revolutionists. Because of rivalry among the soldiers and the insufficiency of their pay in Tibet, clashes took place within the Chinese army. The Amban had the local leader of the Ko-lao-hui executed; but this only led to recriminations and murder among the Chinese officers. Political dissensions and personal feuds resulted in the defection of a Chinese colonel, Hsieh Kuo-liang, and three other officers to the Tibetan side. They joined the Sera monastery as monks.

In October 1911, the revolution led by Sun Yat-sen overthrew the Manchus in China. When this news reached Lhasa, the members of the Ko-lao-hui mutinied. They attacked the Amban's residence and looted his house. The Amban fled from Lhasa and took refuge near the Drepung monastery; but the mutineers caught up with him and carried him off to Shigatse as a hostage. Chung-yin, the Manchu commander-in-chief, intervened on behalf of the Amban and secured his release. Afterwards, the mutineers called for the other army units stationed at outlying points to join them for the march back to China and home. This brought additional Chinese troops to Lhasa "whose plunder on the way and in the capital aroused widespread ill-feeling among the Tibetans."14

The combination of increasing imperialist demands (from both Japan and the West), frustration with the foreign Manchu Government embodied by the Qing court, and the desire to see a unified China less parochial in outlook fed a growing nationalism that spurred on revolutionary ideas....

[M]illions of Chinese living overseas, especially in Southeast Asia and the Americas, began pressing for either widespread reform or outright revolution.
Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao emerged as leaders of those proposing the creation of a constitutional monarchy. Sun Yat-sen led the amalgam of groups that together formed the Revolutionary Alliance or Tongmenghui. The Revolutionary Alliance advocated replacing Qing rule with a republican government; Sun himself was a nationalist with some socialist tendencies.

Both the revolutionary leaders and the overseas Chinese bankrolling their efforts had their roots in southern China....

Finally, in the autumn of 1911, the right set of conditions turned an uprising in Wuchang into a nationalist revolt. As its losses mounted, the Qing court responded positively to a set of demands intended to transform authoritarian imperial rule into a Constitutional monarchy. They named Yuan Shikai the new premier of China, but before he was able to retake the captured areas from the revolutionaries, the provinces started to declare their allegiance to the Revolutionary Alliance. Dr. Sun was in the United States on a fundraising tour at the time of the initial revolt; he hastened first to London and Paris to ensure that neither country would give financial or military support to the Qing government in its struggle. By the time he returned to China, the revolutionaries had taken Nanjing, a former capital under the Ming Dynasty, and representatives from the provinces began to arrive for the first national assembly. Together, they elected Dr. Sun the provisional president of the newly declared Republic of China....

[T]he emperor and the royal family abdicated the throne in February of 1912.

The 1911 revolution was only the first steps in a process that would require the 1949 revolution to complete. Though the new government created the Republic of China and established the seat of government in Nanjing, it failed to unify the country under its control. The Qing withdrawal led to a power vacuum in certain regions, resulting in the rise of warlords. These warlords often controlled their territories without acknowledging the nationalist government. Additionally, the reforms set in place by the new government were not nearly as sweeping as the revolutionary rhetoric had intended; unifying the country took precedent over fundamental changes....

[T]he United States was largely supportive of the republican project, and in 1913, the United States was among the first countries to establish full diplomatic relations with the new Republic.

-- The Chinese Revolution of 1911, by Office of the Historian, Department of State

Chao Erh-feng had maintained his headquarters at Chamdo; but on receiving news of the revolution in China, he returned to his capital in Szechuan, leaving his deputy in command of the troops in Kham.15 In the following year, Chao was executed.16

News spread throughout Tibet that the Dalai Lama was about to return from exile. This caused the Chinese troops and civilians in U- Tsang to be constantly harassed. Kanam Depa of Poyul in southeastern Tibet openly revolted against the Chinese. Imperial troops, under Lo Chang-chi, were sent from Lhasa towards Poyul; but, because of the steep, rocky roads leading to that remote area, the Chinese lost many men on the way and had to return without being able to suppress the uprising.

A number of the Dalai Lama's junior officials in Darjeeling volunteered to return to Tibet and fight. They arrived in Tsang and organized uprisings. They attacked the Chinese at Shigatse and Gyantse; but they suffered severe losses and had to return in disgrace to Darjeeling, where for a time they were ridiculed by the senior Tibetan officials. They were summoned into the presence of the Prime Minister, Lonchen Shatra, expecting to be reprimanded; but the shrewd Lonchen praised their efforts. He declared them to be heroes, saying that he was sure they would be more successful in their next venture. Inspired by his confidence in them, the young officials returned again to Tibet, where they did an excellent job of organizing guerrilla resistance. Eventually, they succeeded in driving the Chinese out of Shigatse and Gyantse. Later on, these young officials were all made generals.

The Dalai Lama then moved from Darjeeling to Kalimpong, where he again stayed at Bhutan House. From there he sent his sealed orders to Lhasa, addressed to Tsepon Norbu Wangyal Trimon and the Secretary-General, Chamba Tendar, who was later to become a Kalon and governor of eastern Tibet. Tsepon Trimon was later to become an assistant to Lonchen Shatra at the Simla Convention, with the rank of commander-in-chief. (Eventually he rose to the position of a Kalon and succeeded Chamba Tendar as governor in eastern Tibet.)

The Dalai Lama instructed these two officials to organize in secret a War Department and to prepare for military action. They were told that if they wished to consult him, they should get into direct contact with him at Kalimpong. This statement implied that the Kashag was to be kept ignorant of their plans; nevertheless, Chamba Tendar and Trimon did at least contact prominent monks in the Sera monastery. By that time, the Chinese military dictatorship in Lhasa was weak and inefficient. Chinese soldiers were selling their guns and ammunition to Tibetan merchants. Chamba Tendar and Trimon sponsored their own merchants to buy Chinese firearms, while they secretly organized the recruitment of Tibetan soldiers.

The proud and patriotic Sera monks, aware of the preparations that were being made, became bold enough to provoke the Chinese openly. This roused the suspicions of the Chinese leaders, who held a meeting in Lhasa to discuss the situation. They complained that they were getting no help from Peking and that it was becoming increasingly difficult to live off the Tibetans and their land. Loans were no longer forthcoming from the Tibetan government. The Chinese assumed that if they put pressure on the government, it might provoke an attack by the Sera monks; therefore, they decided to risk an attack on Sera itself, even though they were uncertain as to the extent of opposition they would have to cope with in so doing.

When Trimon and Chamba Tendar learned of the Chinese decision to attack Sera, they contacted the Banagshol tribe of the Kham region, and deployed them to defend Sera. On November 2, 1911, the Chinese attacked the monastery. They captured and burned the surrounding hermitages and laid siege to the monastery itself. The three Chinese officers who had earlier defected to become monks now made themselves very useful to the Tibetan defenders. One of them, Hsieh Kuo~liang, emerged from the monastery at night and penetrated the Chinese lines. He spread the fiction that the monks were approaching from behind and thus diverted the attention of the Chinese so that the Sera monks were able to take the offensive. The Kham tribesmen fought so fiercely that the Chinese were unable to make any headway, even though the fighting lasted ninety-six hours.

Meanwhile, in Lhasa, Trimon and Chamba Tendar had openly declared war, and when this news reached Sera, the Chinese troops abruptly stopped fighting and immediately marched on Lhasa. Lhasa itself was then divided into two zones; the northern being occupied by Tibetans, the southern by Chinese. The front doors and windows of every house in town were blocked with sandbags. Communicating passages were made from one house to another by breaking through the walls. A stockaded street separated the two zones.

Both the Tibetans and the Chinese dug underground tunnels into each other's zone and laid fuses to explode kegs of powder placed under important outposts and houses. These tunnels were made in zigzag fashion to lessen the shock waves from the explosion. To draw the Chinese to the site of a planned explosion, the Tibetans would launch a brief attack on that area. Because the Tibetans repeatedly used the same tactic, the Chinese finally ignored this ruse and the explosion would take place in an area already evacuated. In order to detect underground digging, earthen jars were buried at floor-level and their rims smeared with mud. The slightest vibration would cause the mud to trickle into the jars.

There were very few large scale engagements. Insults were hurled from windows, and, because random sniping took place in streets dividing the two zones, it was dangerous to stand near an open window. By the end of almost a year's fighting, one third of Lhasa had been subjected to devastation and ruin. Tsepon Trimon himself was wounded in the arm; but he concealed his injury and continued to perform his duties. The Sera monks and the Banagshol Khampa joined in the fighting at Lhasa and made frequent raids on the Chinese cantonment at Drapchi, just outside the city. Many men were lost in their attacks on that well-fortified garrison.

Chinese outposts in Tsang and near the Indian border were being consistently attacked and captured by the Tibetans, who had returned from Darjeeling. The roads to Kham and the Indian border were blocked and the fleeing Chinese headed for Lhasa, where they felt there would be safety in numbers.

In Kalimpong, Dazang Dadul, the hero of the Chaksam battle, was made a commander-in-chief of the Tibetan forces and in January 1912 was sent to Lhasa to work in close cooperation with the War Department set up by Trimon and Chamba Tendar. The Chinese troops were facing a grave food shortage. They might have capitulated sooner; but they were able to hold out longer by moving into the friendly Tengyeling monastery in Lhasa, which belonged to the followers of the late Regent Demo. There they found supplies sufficient for another six months. This resulted in another Lhasa street-song, which described the prolongation of the war even after the arrival of the new commander-in-chief.

Dazang Dadul, Tsepon Trimon, and Chamba Tendar called a secret meeting of the Tsongdu, at which it was decided to arrest all pro-Chinese Tibetan officials, before there were any more defections like that of the Tengyeling monastery. As a result of this decision, the members of the Kashag were all arrested. Kalon Tsarong, his son, and Kadrung Tsashagpa, the secretary of the Kashag, were shot for having close relations with the Chinese. The other three Kalons, who had been appointed by the Chinese, namely, Tensing Chosdrak, Rampa, and Langchongpa, were imprisoned. Phunrabpa, a secretary-general, Mondrong, a treasurer, and Lozang Dorje, a monk official, were executed for being on friendly terms with the monks from the Tengyeling monastery. At the outbreak of the fighting in Lhasa, this monastery had declined the offer of government troops for its protection and the three executed officials had guaranteed its defense. There was no longer a Kashag and all important matters were now deliberated by the War Department and the Tsongdu, sometimes in consultation with the Dalai Lama in India.

During his stay in India, the Dalai Lama was very well treated by the British and relations between India and Tibet consequently improved considerably. Since preparations were being made for his return to Tibet, the Dalai Lama wrote to the Viceroy, through Charles Bell, thanking him for the hospitality shown by the British government during his two-year stay in India. He made known his intention to return to Lhasa. He likened the situation in Tibet to a reservoir which requires constant replenishing if it is not to dry up. Due to the revolution in China, the Chinese troops in Tibet were not being reinforced and the level of the Chinese reservoir was falling fast. As the Tibetans were fighting with very high morale, the Dalai Lama hoped that they would soon drive out the Chinese. Even more important to him at that point was the future of Tibet itself. He reminded the Viceroy of his request for British participation in settling future problems between China and Tibet. Charles Bell, who was given the letter, was also apprised of its contents.

While at Kalimpong, the Dalai Lama had been shown great consideration by Raja Kazi Ugyen, whose house he had occupied. The Dalai Lama expressed his appreciation for the Raja's hospitality by conferring on him and all his descendants the Tibetan rank of Rimshi (Fourth Rank).

On the tenth day of the fifth Tibetan month of the Water-Mouse year (1912), the Dalai Lama left Kalimpong for Tibet, via the Dzalep-la pass. At Yatung, he remained a week at the residence of the British Trade Agent, David Macdonald. From there, he wrote to various monasteries and chieftains in eastern Tibet, encouraging them in their opposition to the Chinese and promising them early liberation. He also wrote to the Banagshol Khampa tribesmen, complimenting them on their brave action at Sera and Lhasa.

Shekar Lingpa, who had been a secretary in the Dalai Lama's service at Darjeeling, was appointed a Kalon to fill the place of the late Tsarong minister. Shekar Lingpa was a straightforward, elderly man, known as an accomplished poet. While in Darjeeling, he had written a number of moving poems in remembrance of Lhasa. Not long after returning to Tibet, Shekar Lingpa died.

Two hundred monks from the monasteries of Sera, Ganden, and Drepung volunteered to escort the Dalai Lama back to Lhasa. They were led by Ragashar. At the same time, two well-known Khampas, Nyima Gyalpo Pandatshang of Markham and Chopatshang of Gojo, voluntarily brought an armed escort of Khampas to join the Dalai Lama. They were to protect him day and night until Lhasa was reached.

The Panchen Lama, who seemingly regretted his fraternization with the Chinese, journeyed with his officials from Tashilhunpo to welcome the Dalai Lama at Ralung. Continuing on his journey, the Dalai Lama spent some time at the Samding monastery near lake Yardok Yutso.
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:28 am

Part 3 of 4

In Peking, Sir John Jordan, the British Minister, met with the new Chinese President Yuan Shih-kai, and protested the Chinese military action in Tibet and their attempt to make Tibet a province of China.17 In time, the President sent a letter, via India, to the Amban Lienyu, ordering him to return to China. The letter instructed him to appoint the Manchu commander, Chung-yin, to continue the usual duties with the help of a council of Chinese officers. The Chinese would have been glad to return to China, but all roads out of the country were in the hands of the Tibetans.

Lacking reinforcements and supplies, the Chinese could not hold out for long in Lhasa. They contacted the Tibetan War Department through the Nepalese representative and offered to surrender. Both Lien-yu and Chung-yin wrote to the Dalai Lama at the Yardok Samding monastery requesting that a representative of the Dalai Lama be present at the time of surrender. The Dalai Lama sent Lonchen Changkhyim, Sera Mey Tsawa Tritrul, and Tsedron Tenzing Gyaltsen to Lhasa to accept the surrender and to conduct negotiations.

The talks began in the presence of the Nepalese representative. The Chinese agreed to hand over all their arms and ammunition, and they requested permission to return to China, via Kham. They asked the Tibetan government to supply them with transport and supplies for the return trip to China. They also appealed for compensation for properties that would have to be left behind. Because there were Chinese troops still in Kham, the request to return via Kham was refused, but the other requests were granted. The Chinese troops would be allowed to return to China via India. Lien-yu and Chung-yin were permitted to retain thirty rifles for their own protection. Those Chinese who had married Tibetan women would be permitted to take their wives and children with them, if their families were willing to go. Those who wanted to remain in Tibet could do so if they agreed to become Tibetan subjects.

The following is a copy of a telegram received from the Viceroy of India relating to the surrender agreement.

From the Viceroy, 3 September, 1912. (Repeated to Peking). Foreign Secret. Tibet. My telegram of 28th August last. Trade Agent at Gyantse telegraphs 3st August: Lamen Kempo, Dalai Lama's confidential adviser, informs me that Agreement dated 12th August runs as follows:

Article I. All Chinese arms and ammunition to be stored under the charge of representatives of both parties and the Nepalese.

Article II. As soon as provisions of Article I have been fulfilled, Chinese officials and soldiers to return to China via India; Tibetan people providing food, etc., on the way to India.

Article III. Traders and others claiming to be Chinese to be protected by Tibetans provided that they behave and observe laws of Tibet.

Paragraph 2. Chinese, however, according to Lamen Kempo, have been slow too fulfill the conditions laid down. First before parting with arms they demanded that Wang Kong Thal, one of the officers who had surrendered to Tibetans, should be handed over. Tibetan Government finally agreed when the Nepalese representative had undertaken responsibility for the safety of the man. Then on 23rd August, Chinese deposited 840 magazine rifles, 4 Maxim guns, 160 pronged guns, 90 jingals, and 90 sealed boxes, most of them said to contain ammunition; however, they would not permit Tibetan authorities to examine contents of boxes and refused to hand over pistils and bolts of rifles. Moreover, Lien and Chung demanded retention of thirty rifles each for their guards. This was agreed to, but it is suspected that both retained many more weapons than the stipulated number. Then, on 21st and 22nd August, when the date of departure was discussed, Chinese demanded that Tibetans should raze all recently constructed fortifications and also move 800 maunds of grain from the Trapchi Barracks to the southern part of the city where Lien is living.

Paragraph 3. By their dilatory and obstructive tactics, Chinese cause irritation and some alarm to Tibetan Government.18

The agreement was signed on the thirteenth day of the sixth month of the Water-Mouse year (August 12, 1912). It stipulated that the Chinese would leave Lhasa within fifteen days; but they prolonged their stay by seven months. The Dalai Lama remained at Yardok Samding monastery and at Chokhor Yangtse until they had departed. While staying at Chokhor Yangtse, the Dalai Lama was informed that the Chinese President, Yuan Shih-kai, had restored his titles to him. Charles Bell who had been closely associated with the Dalai Lama in India, wrote:

Yuan Shih-kai, the President of the Chinese Republic, telegraphed to him [Dalai Lama], apologizing for the excesses of the Chinese troops, and restoring the Dalai Lama to his former rank. The Dalai Lama replied that he was not asking the Chinese Government for any rank, as he intended to exercise both temporal and ecclesiastical rule in Tibet. Thus the god-king made clear his declaration of Tibetan independence.19 [19. Portrait, p. 135; Richardson, p. 105.]

Portrait of a Dalai Lama: The Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth, by Sir Charles Bell
First published in 1946 by Wm. Collins, London.
This edition published in 1987.

P. 155

The Tibetan biography records, "Thus the great sun rose again in the snowy land, and the light of happiness spread over the country." The Dalai Lama in his political testament, referring to this period of exile, attributes it to the wicked actions of the Chinese and his own religious action to combat them. "Religious services," he writes, "were held on behalf of the Faith and the secular side of state affairs. These insured the full ripening of the evil deeds of the Chinese, and in consequence internal commotion broke out in China, and the time was changed." He calls on the entire population of Tibet, both supreme beings and human beings, to witness these facts.

A few months after the Dalai Lama returned to Tibet, Yuan Shihkai, the President of the Chinese Republic, telegraphed to him, apologising for the excesses of the Chinese troops, and restoring the Dalai Lama to his former rank. The Dalai Lama replied that he was not asking the Chinese Government for any rank, as he intended to exercise both temporal and spiritual rule in Tibet. Thus the holy sovereign made clear his declaration of Tibetan independence.

As between Tibet and Great Britain there was now in our mutual relationship a complete change. In 1904 British troops had invaded Tibet and occupied Lhasa. Tibetans had naturally looked on this as an act of violence, the oppression of the weak by the strong
, or, as their maxim runs:

Lion! Do not fight with dog!
Lion, though victor, is lion defeated.

Then the Dalai Lama and the skeleton of his Government had been driven by the Chinese into exile in India. We had afforded him and his Ministers protection from their Chinese assailants, and shown them hospitality and friendship.

This good treatment of the Dalai Lama and his Ministers had a better effect on our relations with Tibet than any other event. For all Tibet reveres the Dalai Lama, and everybody among them thought it very merciful of the British Government to have treated the Dalai Lama and his Ministers hospitably, and to have provided them with police guards after they had fought against us in Tibet during the Younghusband expedition six years earlier. The total cost to our Government was not more than 5,0000 pounds. China in similar circumstances would have spent a hundred times this sum.

All Tibet was pleased. Their Government would have liked their country to be turned into a British Protectorate on the lines of our recent treaty with Bhutan, but that -- for us -- would have been sheer lunacy, entailing the defence of a million square miles in High Asia. That we would not establish this Protectorate showed once again that we did not covet their domain.

The news of the good treatment given to His Holiness and his retinue penetrated quickly not only throughout Tibet, but through Mongolia, China, and Japan. When I visited distant Mongolia twenty-three years afterwards, I received a good welcome on account of my long connection with Tibet, and most of all by reason of my long friendship with the Dalai Lama.

Soon after his return to Tibet the Dalai Lama wrote to the Viceroy of India, and in the letter was pleased to say that I had "a vast knowledge of Tibetan affairs." He added, "In following out his duties to his own Government, he has been highly useful to me also, and has rendered me great assistance in the administration of Tibet."

Many were the invitations that I received from the Dalai Lama and his Ministers to visit Lhasa, and they wrote me numerous long letters about all their troubles. Large sheets of the Tibetan parchment paper, on which both the letters were written and the long reports that accompanied them, used to arrive every week or two. The reports were from their officials, high and low, detailing among other matters specific acts of aggression by the Chinese on their eastern frontier. Thus I learnt not only what was happening in Lhasa, but far afield in the distant areas of Tibet. From there the mounted couriers of the Government, having frequent changes of ponies, brought despatches to Lhasa with great rapidity.

The letters and reports were, of course, enclosed in a ceremonial scarf of thin white silk. And over all was the thick parchment cover, liberally sealed. Now and then, on the covers of letters from the Dalai Lama himself, there would be the order to the postal runners who carried them, "Do not stop even to take breath!" The Precious Sovereign did not lose time himself, and did not like others to do so.

-- Political Struggles, from Portrait of a Dalai Lama: The Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth, by Sir Charles Bell


As the cadre were the first modern Europeans to reside in Tibet, they had a unique opportunity to increase European knowledge of the region. This body of knowledge was, prior to the Younghusband Mission, greatly restricted, particularly in regard to details of Tibet's political structures.

The cadre became the primary interpreters of Tibet to the outside world, and the information they obtained and propagated became the basis for much of our modern knowledge of Tibet. But the image which they produced strongly reflects the character and policy aims of these individuals, and the interests and perspectives of the imperial power and its allies within the Lhasa ruling class as they attempted to transform Tibet into a modern nation-state. As the image was advantageous to both power groups, they cooperated in presenting and preserving it. By controlling access to both Tibet, and the body of knowledge built up, the cadre and their Tibetan allies tried to prevent the emergence of opposing images.

That the British sought to produce an image of Tibet was originally implicit in the search for contact and meaning. After Younghusband it became explicit, with the cadre specifically stating that they sought to propagate ideas and images for a political purpose. These ideas and images became part of a battle to establish a view of the country on the international stage, and were an important weapon in the cadre's attempts to transform Tibet into an entity associated with India. Thus Gould stated that 'One of our main political aims...[was]..., showing that Tibet had its own art, etc and that in some ways... Tibet is more closely allied to India than to China’.[1]

The cadre's part in the creation of an image of Tibet is a significant issue because, although there is also a 'mystical' image of Tibet, the image resulting from the British perception was, and still is, the dominant one held in political and academic circles. This image was an important legacy of the British presence in Tibet, and continues to shape the European response to Tibet's status today.

In this chapter we will examine the concept of 'Tibet' and 'Tibetan' as it existed before the encounter with the British, and describe how the imperial power engaged in a complex process of defining what was 'Tibetan', and what was 'non-Tibetan' as they attempted to transform Tibet into what would have been, in effect, a modern nation-state according to the European understanding of the term. Policies and image-creation were part of the same political process, and we will examine how this process raised questions as to whether concepts of Tibetan identity could survive the transition to modern statehood. In the following chapter we will demonstrate the means by which this image of Tibet was produced, controlled, and 'sold'.


In seeking ties with Lhasa's ruling elite, the British were implicitly identifying Lhasa as the administrative and political centre of a Tibetan state. But Tibet was not then a nation-state in the European definition. The model of the nation-state was a relatively recent European phenomenon, which may be defined as consisting of a territorial entity, within defined borders, in which a single government was sovereign. Citizens of a nation-state were assumed to be predominantly from a single ethnic group, Germans, Greeks, and so on, or composed of ethnic groups, such as English, Irish, Scots and Welsh, sharing certain aims and assumptions and coming together as a nation-state for mutual benefit. [2]

This European assumption that peoples of a nation-state shared common interests and perceptions meant that in identifying a nation, its peoples were defined as characterised by certain shared qualities. The definition of these qualities created categories of 'insider' and 'outsider' which were applied in defining the nation. (As will be seen, the Tibetans understood these 'insider/outsider' concepts primarily in a religious sense.) Thus certain distinct aspects of culture, geography, language and so on, were identified as definitive qualities of 'Tibet' and 'Tibetanness'. When these definitions had been made, conformity to them became the measure of whether something was Tibetan or non-Tibetan. 'Tibetans' for example, were defined by the British as wearing Tibetan clothing. If they adopted European clothing, this was regarded as diminishing their Tibetan identity.[3]

Officers such as Bell and Gould, who wrote Tibetan dictionaries, helped define the Tibetan language in European understanding, just as the British defined the Tibetan border with India.
They imposed a linguistic standard which complemented other contemporary definitions, of Tibet's territory, leadership and so on, which were required if Tibet was to be within European definitions of a modern nation state. The Tibetans' separate language was, and is, an important part of their claim to a separate identity, and hence separate state, from the Chinese. Thus the cadre's language studies helped to bring out Tibet's separate status, enhancing the political aims of the British and their Tibetan allies.

The effect of this classification of identity was to impose conformity to European definitions as a pre-condition for acceptance of elements as 'Tibetan'. The power of definition was appropriated by European authority. For example, Tibetans were seen by the British as reliant on astrological calculations as to the most auspicious date on which to carry out significant activities. Yet when the Dalai Lama was to visit Calcutta, Bell noted that 'not until I reminded them of the necessity of doing so did the Dalai Lama and party remember to enquire as to auspicious dates’.[4]

As a result of the European definition of Tibet, the required characteristics of Tibetan identity were fixed in (or beyond) time. Thus a British travel writer in the 1930s observed that 'once trains or motors have been introduced... Tibet... will be Tibet no longer'. The effect has lasted; a Tibetan historian today, long-resident in Britain, observes that a friend 'can't get used to the idea of a Tibetan driving a car'. [5]

These characteristics were not constructed without basis. That Tibetans were a distinct ethnic group, more akin to Mongols than to Chinese or Indians, was undisputed; the Chinese defined them as one of the five races forming the Chinese nation. As an ethnic group, Tibetans were clearly distinct from their neighbours. They maintained a unique social system, free of the religiously-sanctioned divisions of Hindu India, with aspects such as fraternal polyandry, which were absent from Han Chinese society. Similarly, Tibetan language and landscape, art, architecture, dress, and diet, as well as their economic and gender relations, were all clearly distinguished from those of neighbouring cultures. These socio-cultural elements of Tibetan identity can be traced back to the earliest recorded periods of Tibetan history around the 7th century AD., and some are clearly earlier.[6]

What was imposed by European classification was a definition which failed to allow for variations such as those occurring in the regions of cultural interface on the periphery of the defined culture. What the British defined as Tibetan was the 'core culture', that of the centre, as represented by their contact with, and allies in, central Tibet. For example, the British expressed their understanding of Tibetan religion in terms which privileged the Gelugpa sect, which predominated in Lhasa and Shigatse, at the expense of sects such as the Bon, whose realms of authority lay in the Tibetan periphery. To the cadre, the area centred on Lhasa, Shigatse and Gyantse was 'Tibet proper, the seat of the Dalai Lama and his Government'. [7]

Since 1947, it has become increasingly clear that, historically, Tibet included a variety of political and administrative formations, and that a single central administration did not consistently maintain authority there.[8] Tibetan territory included enclaves under the jurisdiction of Bhutan and Sikkim, and, at various times in its history, power centres such as Shigatse conducted dealings with foreign powers without reference to Lhasa. [9]

The principalities which made up Eastern Tibet were particularly reluctant to allow Lhasa to exercise secular authority in their domain, and Lhasa was often, in the Eastern Tibetan perspective, a remote and largely nominal authority. Even the religious authority of Lhasa vested in the leading Gelugpa sect was not necessarily accepted in these areas, where the prevailing sectarian orientation was towards the Nyingma or Bon sects. [10]

The established models of the traditional Tibetan state formation are those hierarchal structures culminating in the office of the Dalai Lama, as propounded by historians such as Hugh Richardson. But Geoffrey Samuel has lately proposed a new model of Tibet's power structure in the pre-British period. He describes it in terms of a 'galactic polity', a 'structure based on a center, and regional administrations that replicated the structure of the center'. The administrations within this system may fluctuate in prominence, and the primary central power focus may shift from one centre to another without significantly changing the overall identity of the system. Samuel's model appears to provide a more realistic, and less Lhasa-centric explanation of the pre-British Tibetan power structure, capable of incorporating extra-territorial elements such as foreign enclaves, and it may be extended into both religious and secular power centres, which were not always synonymous, and are difficult to represent hierarchically, even at a fixed point in time.[11]

Just as Tibet was not a modern nation-state in the sense of having a centralised administration controlled by a single government, it also failed to satisfy the demand that a modern nation-state should have fixed borders. The geographers, Davis and Prescott, have presented evidence suggesting that the concept of boundaries was almost universal in traditional societies (among which, in this sense, we may include Tibet), but that formal delimitation of these borders was not necessarily made unless they became subject to dispute. The case of Tibet's borders would appear to support this conclusion. [12]

Historically, the principal external threat to Tibet had come from China, and the Sino-Tibetan border was defined in a Treaty between Tibet and China as early as 821-22 AD. Disputes in western Tibet led to the fixing of the Tibetan border with Ladakh in 1683, and the Tibet-Nepal border was also clearly established, as can be seen from the 1856 Treaty which followed war between Tibet and Nepal.[13] But as there had been no major disputes with India, or with Tibet's northern neighbours, neither the Indo-Tibetan border nor Tibet's borders with Mongolia and Sinkiang had been formally defined by the 20th century, although in each case their location was apparently clearly understood by both parties.

British definitions of 'Tibetan' privileged certain aspects of culture and nation in line with the European understanding of the necessary components of a state and a people. Thus geographical boundaries were created, as the European definition of a state required fixed boundaries. Peoples within that boundary were defined as Tibetan, and assumed to share the characteristics of the core culture (although the cadre recognised that the drawing of India’s borders had left Tibetan peoples within India).

The peoples of the Tibetan region did share socio-cultural values which contributed to a strong sense of collective identity, and this persisted despite changing institutional loyalties. [14] The key element of this sense of collective identity was the Tibetan Buddhist faith, which was an integral part of their social and political systems. The Tibetans described their own identity by the term nang pa, meaning a Buddhist, or an 'insider'. Non-Buddhists, even those of Tibetan race such as the minority Muslim community, were termed 'phyi pa' or 'outsiders'.[15]....

Our Pon [Bon] tradition is valid, because it believes in the sacredness of feeding life, bringing forth food from the earth in order to feed our offspring. These very simple things exist. This is religion, this is truth, as far as the Pon [Bon] tradition is concerned....

For instance, we think the body is extremely important, because it maintains the mind. The mind feeds the body and the body feeds the mind. We feel it is important to keep this happening in a healthy manner for our benefit, and we have come to the conclusion that the easiest way to achieve this tremendous scheme of being healthy is to start with the less complicated side of it: feed the body. Then we can wait and see what happens with the mind. If we are less hungry, then we are more likely to be psychologically jolly, and then we may feel like looking into the teachings of depth psychology or other philosophies.

This is also the approach of the Pon [Bon] tradition: Let us kill a yak; that will make us spiritually higher. Our bodies will be healthier, so our minds will be higher. American Indians would say, let us kill one buffalo. It is the same logic. It is very sensible. We could not say that it is insane at all. It is extremely sane, extremely realistic, very reasonable and logical....

Philosophies of this type are to be found not only among the Red Americans, but also among the Celts, the pre-Christian Scandinavians, and the Greeks and Romans. Such a philosophy can be found in the past of any nation that had a pre-Christian or pre-Buddhist religion, a religion of fertility or ecology -- such as that of the Jews, the Celts, the American Indians, whatever. That approach of venerating fertility and relating with the earth still goes on, and it is very powerful and very beautiful. I appreciate it very thoroughly, and I could become a follower of such a philosophy. In fact, I am one. I am a Ponist. I believe in Pon because I am Tibetan.

-- Crazy Wisdom, by Chogyam Trungpa

The Tibetan conception of themselves as a political entity was of Tibet as a religious territory, the ideal home of Buddhism....

LAMAISM: Early History

What precise form of Buddhism first came to Royal Tibet from China, before the imported Tantra of Indian yogis took it over, is not precisely known. Most historians agree that a stream of Chinese Buddhism influenced a certain Tsongsten Gampo, a seventh century Tibetan chieftain, who wanted to expand and then centralize his power with the help of Chinese protection, after conquering other fighting Tibetan tribes. To accomplish this, he married a Chinese princess, Wen Cheng, of the ruling T'ang dynasty, thus initiating formal relations with China. Princess Wen Cheng not only introduced Buddhism, but a higher cultural influence into the tribal royal reaches of Tibet. She brought butter, tea, cheese, barley beer, ancient medical knowledge, and astrology.75 Her form of Buddhism was probably closer to the Chan Buddhism that had spread into Korea, and later into Japan, developing into Zen Buddhism.

This conversion to Chinese Buddhism was not accomplished easily in Tibet. It was a period of constant struggle between the Bon shamanism of the indigenous people, and this new religion, brought to her royal chieftain by this Chinese princess. For it to take hold, as the established religion, beyond the interests of the royal families and their aristocracy, generations of bloody struggles ensued, while more Vajrayana occultism and Tantric Indian guru-worship permeated what eventually became an amalgam of Buddhism, Bon, and Tantra.

When an Indian sorcerer and sadhu, Guru Padmasambhava76 was invited to Tibet in the eighth century by King Trisong Detsen, Tsongsten Gampo's successor, and was asked to help this royal chieftain curb the rebellious Bon resistance, a wrathful repression of the indigenous Bon took place, even though much of its iconography and influence remained.

King Detsen was a more ardent practitioner than his predecessor, Tsongsten Gampo but, like him, took a practical approach to the Tibetan Lamaist priesthood that was growing inside Tibet, and who saw the uses of these lamas, in unifying the warring Tibetan chieftain tribes. He now declared Tibetan Lamaism the state religion and, following an Indian custom, awarded landed estates and serfs to the Lamaist monasteries that were already starting to proliferate, as its monastic movement spread,77 King Detsen was such a zealous Lamaist that he protected the lama clergy by creating a barbaric code that facilitated their guru-worship and future religious dictatorship when he declared:

He who shows a finger to a monk shall have his finger cut off; he who speaks ill of the monks and king's Buddhist policy shall have his lips cut off; he who looks askance at them shall have his eyes put out; he who them shall pay according to the rule of the restitution of eighty times (the value of the article stolen).78

King Detsen also financially empowered the Lamaist monasteries further, by making them exempt from any taxes and free from performing the hated corvee79 demanded of the peasants by the nobility of Tibet.

Soon, the lamas were also demanding corvee from the Tibetan peasants and, as the Lamaseries' powers grew, the lamas were collecting their own taxes and issuing their own debt notes, that amounted to a debilitating usury on the ordinary Tibetan people whose children and grandchildren inherited the debt. This ensured impoverishment for the vast majority, for centuries, with very little means of social and economic fluidity.

As the monasteries flourished, the lamas kept gaining power, by incorporating the Buddhist concept of "karma," into their predetermined and absolutist Lamaist rule and the Tibetan peoples' fate was sealed. In 797, King Trisong Detsen was succeeded by his second son, Muni Tsenpo who, in a moment of real compassion, tried to devise some way to redistribute some of the wealth in Tibet among its suffering and increasingly impoverished people. However, in the end, the Lamaist system prevailed, and Muni Tsenpo was rewarded by being poisoned by his own mother.80

Padmasambhava, King Trisong Detsen's Tantric Indian sorcerer, always considered more important than the historical Buddha in Tibet, further sealed the fate of the Tibetan people when he publically declared that:

Our condition in this life is entirely dependent upon the actions of our previous life and nothing can be done to alter the scheme of things.81

Poverty and misery; perpetuated by the lamas and their wealthy circle of relatives, who increasingly took over the royal families and their rule, was now to be accepted as one's "karma" from past deeds. This ended any possibility of real compassion for the people of Tibet for the next twelve hundred years.

-- Enthralled, The Guru Cult of Tibetan Buddhism, by Chris Chandler

George Dreyfus concluded that the Tibetans' definition of themselves in relation to Buddhism dates to the period from the 12th to the 14th centuries. There was then a deliberate effort by Tibet's rulers to establish a sense of Buddhist heritage in the country, which was aimed at recreating the strong, united Tibetan empire of the 7th to 8th centuries. The 'invention of tradition' in this period attributed the period of Tibetan greatness, which remained in their collective memory, to the Buddhist kings of the empire period.[17][[17] Dreyfus (1994); as Dreyfus notes, there are doubts over the extent to which these kings were Buddhist. Hobsbawm & Ranger (1983)]....

The Buddha was born into a noble family.... His father was king Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan in what was the growing state of Kosala, and his mother was queen Maya Devi...A prophecy indicated that if the child stayed at home he was destined to become a world ruler. If the child left home, however, he would become a universal spiritual leader. To make sure the boy would be a great king and world ruler, his father isolated him in his palace.... Separated from the world, he later married Yashodhara (Yaśodhara was the daughter of King Suppabuddha and Amita), and together they had one child, a son, Rāhula....

At the age of 29, Siddhartha left his palace to meet his subjects. Despite his father's efforts to hide from him the sick, aged and suffering, Siddhartha was said to have seen an old man. When his charioteer Channa explained to him that all people grew old, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace. On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome ageing, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.

Accompanied by Channa and riding his horse Kanthaka, Gautama quit his palace for the life of a mendicant. It's said that "the horse's hooves were muffled by the gods" to prevent guards from knowing of his departure.

Gautama initially went to Rajagaha and began his ascetic life by begging for alms in the street. After King Bimbisara's men recognised Siddhartha and the king learned of his quest, Bimbisara offered Siddhartha the throne. Siddhartha rejected the offer but promised to visit his kingdom of Magadha first, upon attaining enlightenment.

-- Family of Gautama Buddha, by Wikipedia

The Tibet which the British encountered was, therefore, a more decentralised polity than was immediately apparent from contact with central Tibet. It was made up of distinct communities of fluctuating importance, with a sense of shared identity based on socio-cultural ties, of which the most important was religious. But the Tibetans were largely devoid of loyalty to the super-personal entities of European statehood. [20] If Tibet was to serve as an effective 'buffer state' for British India, it was necessary to develop the political and administrative structures within Tibet, thereby encouraging the processes which created a 'nation'....


In the period leading up to the Younghusband Mission, and in accounts of the Mission, British descriptions of Tibet and its people were predominantly negative. Percival Landon, the London Times correspondent officially attached to the Younghusband Mission, described the Tibetans as a 'stunted and dirty little people', a comment typical of the time. British troops had recently fought Tibet, and contemporary descriptions of Tibetans were typical of the discourse of war. Frontier officers who were later to write laudatory descriptions of the Tibetans commonly described them in such pejorative terms. Even Bell was associated with a report which described Tibetans as 'untruthful and faithless, deceitful and insincere', and Tibetan Buddhism as having become 'a disastrous parasitic disease'.[26]...

In 1905, O'Connor described how the young Dalai Lama had acted

in accordance with the dictates of his own untrammeled will. No person or party of the State dared for a moment to oppose him. His brief rule was signalised by numerous proscriptions, banishments, imprisonings and torturings. Neither life nor property was safe for a moment...[29]

It became apparent to the cadre that, historically, the Dalai Lama was the only leader acceptable to all factions of Tibetan society. While there may have been opposition to the application of the Dalai Lama's policies, his personal status was apparently unchallenged, and there is a remarkable lack of evidence of opposition to the system itself. This made the 13th Dalai Lama the ideal figure for the British to befriend; by influencing him, they influenced Tibet. [31]....

British interests, from the perspective of the Tibet cadre, required that Tibet be a strong, unified state, capable of excluding foreign influence, and that it follow the 'advice' of a British representative in Lhasa. While the cadre's policies, such as establishing a representative in Lhasa, were aimed at creating this ideal Tibet, they also attempted at the same time to create an image of Tibet which matched the ideal. Thus the image of Tibet which the cadre constructed portrayed the ideal Tibet which their policies were designed to create. While Whitehall refused to recognise Tibet as an independent state, the cadre sought to make Tibetan independence a fait accompli....


As part of their effort to transform Tibet into a modern nation-state, the British therefore encouraged the Tibetan Government to undertake the processes of asserting sovereignty and state responsibility for its citizens.

Lhasa was encouraged to demonstrate its authority over Tibet's outlying areas. For example, Bell gave the Dalai Lama 'constant advice' that he should improve the quality of his administration in Eastern Tibet in order to prevent the local people from favouring Chinese administration. This, Bell stated in an implicit acknowledgement of Tibet's previous lack of unity, would mean that 'eastern Tibetans add their wide territories to the rule of Lhasa and work for a united Tibet'.[47]

Unity was regarded by the British as an essential element of a strong state. It had been one of the advantages which O 'Connor had seen in creating a state in southern Tibet centred around the Panchen Lama. After the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet in 1912, however, Bell was concerned to ensure that future cadre officers should, in their dealings with the Panchen Lama, avoid 'encouraging... any aspirations towards independence of Lhasa'. Bell clearly stated that 'We want a united Tibet'; abetting the Dalai Lama to centralise his administration was one means towards this. [48]

While encouraging the development of national structures, the cadre simultaneously sought to reinforce the processes which linked 'Tibet' and 'Tibetans', and to create a sense of nationalism there. They pursued a variety of schemes which, as Gould clearly stated, were aimed at 'developing the... national consciousness of Tibet'.[49]

One example of this was the stimulus given by Ludlow's school, and the Gould Mission, to the creation of a Tibetan football team. Ludlow's school team adopted 'Tibetan colours' of yellow and maroon. Gould's Mission created a 'Tibetan' team, which played, under British auspices, against other defined races in Lhasa; the Nepalese, the British, the Ladakhis and so on. Similarly, Ludlow and his successors encouraged Tibetan pupils at British schools to wear their national dress, and Ludlow chose to give photos of the Dalai Lama as school prizes, rather than cash. Other policy initiatives, such as donations to monasteries, were designed to give 'the right background to the ideas we seek to propagate'. [50]

There is insufficient evidence to judge the extent to which the British contributed to the Tibetans' adoption of many external symbols of nationality, such as stamps, currency and a flag, but certainly the Tibetans' choice of the tune 'God Save the King' as their national anthem suggests British influence! There were few areas where the cadre could not see (or claim to see) means of developing Tibetan nationalism. Gould, for example, claimed that: 'There are distinct signs that the grant of free transit [for Tibetan goods on Indian railways] tends to foster amongst Tibetans the development of a feeling of nationality.'[51]

The cadre intended these policies to strengthen Tibet, and the position of British allies there, and policies such as supporting the concentration of power in the hands of the Dalai Lama and his administration were designed to appeal to these allies. But this upset the delicate power-balance in Tibet, and without active British intervention there, which was not a realistic option, British allies were unable to complete the processes initiated by the British.

Ultimately, the British were largely unsuccessful in their efforts to foster Tibetan nationalism. The American journalist, Archie Steele, who visited Lhasa in 1944, observed 'few stirrings of nationalism as yet in Buddhist Tibet'.[52] Richardson, asked in 1951 whether Tibet's monks were loyal to their religion or their government, answered that the monks were

madly loyal to their religion and to the Dalai Lama, but [that] they are not very fond of the executive....It is religion and the head of the religion that commands their loyalty.[53]


Modernisation became part of the cadre's attempts to establish a strong Tibetan identity and locate it in the modern world....

Bell used his friendship with the Dalai Lama to ensure that the British guided Tibet's modernisation. During the period 1913-21, he encouraged the Dalai Lama to bring Tibetan structures and processes in line with European models of modern states. Foreign experts were brought to Tibet to assist the development of communications and modern mining techniques; Tibet's military forces were reorganised, and plans were made for the introduction of western-style education. The Dalai Lama was encouraged to reform the economic basis of the country in order to develop the financial resources necessary for modernisation in the absence of foreign financial aid, which Bell could not offer.

These developments were all features of modern states; they also, as Bell recognised, functioned as aspects of imperial power, making the Tibetans 'economically and militarily dependent on us to just that extent that is desirable’.[56] Aspects such as the introduction of western education were designed to ensure that 'the future administrators of Tibet... gain their ideas... from England rather than... any other country.'[57]....

The required breakdown of existing social structures, and the streamlining of power sources, began to threaten Tibet's fragile national unity, and even the secular position of the Dalai Lama himself. The growth of military power, and social changes, were particularly threatening to the monastic power structure.
Bell was made personally aware of these problems during his visit to Lhasa in 1920-21, when his own safety was threatened by monastic elements opposed to modernisation policies.[58]

These threats to Tibetan social stability, not least the events surrounding Laden La in 1923-24, caused the Dalai Lama to abandon the modernisation process in the mid-1920s.... The cadre had failed to create Tibet as a modern state in the European definition....

The traditional Tibetan power structure under the Dalai Lama was an extremely conservative force, strongly resistant to change. [60] By allying themselves with this elite, the British did aid its survival. They helped prevent the emergence of any alternative ruling structures, and, by acquiescing in Tibet's rejection of modernisation, which might have broken down the traditional structures which were preventing change, they allowed the system to continue largely unaltered. The cadre, in the absence of any significant support from their government for policies which would have produced change, continued to support their local allies, and to regard any elements opposing these allies as being motivated by pro-Chinese (republican or communist) sympathies, with possible Russian connections always considered.[61]


The image of Tibet which the British created was multi-faceted, with secondary images (those which support, or have other purposes), around a 'core' image (that which 'gathers and organizes imagery'). [62] The core image was the political one: Tibet becoming a modern nation-state, united under a single government sovereign within its borders, and existing as a friendly neighbour to British India.

This core image was most clearly articulated by Bell, who wove the key ingredients together. Thus he described how 'Modern Tibet... rejects the Chinese suzerainty and claims the status of an independent nation', a nation in which 'national sentiment... is now a growing force'. The Dalai Lama was 'determined to free Tibet as far as possible from Chinese rule.' In this he had the support of the 'the majority of the Tibetan race...[who]... see in him ... the only means of attaining their goal.' In support of this, Bell quoted a Tibetan noble as stating that 'All [Tibetans] like his [the Dalai Lama's] having supreme power'. The attitude to Britain of this 'self-governing country', was 'one of cordial friendship’ and the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying that as British and Tibetans were 'both religious peoples', they could 'live in amity together', whereas the Chinese were not religious, and were thus incompatible with the Tibetans. Tibet would, Bell predicted, ’at length secure[s] recognition of the integrity and autonomy of her territory'. [63]

The core image which Bell articulated was the basis for the British construction of an image of Tibet. Later cadre officers followed his definitions and assumed their readers' familiarity with his works. For example, Spencer-Chapman suggested that readers might compare an illustration in his book with the same scene in an earlier work of Bell's, and Hopkinson could state in 1950 that 'I do not wish to waste your time by repeating facts of ancient history with which you are already familiar from books and articles, such as Sir Charles Bell's.'[64]

The cadre constantly reinforced this core image. Thus typically we read in these works that the 'Dalai Lama is, of course, absolute ruler in all things spiritual as well as temporal.' Cadre officers describe their 'friendly personal discussion[s]' with Tibetan officials, and state that 'Ever since 1912 the Tibetans have, in fact, been unquestionably independent.'[65]

Around this core image were secondary images, designed to reinforce the core image. These could consist of aspects of the core image which were inconsistent with European understanding being presented in positive forms; for example, the Dalai Lama's supreme authority, extreme, and certainly undemocratic by British standards, was defended; 'Naturally there will always be some who from jealousy or other motives criticize one who has the strength of character to assume such autocratic power.'[66]

Other secondary images were subjective judgments whose authority rested on that of their author's empirical observation. Thus, the aristocrats surrounding the Dalai Lama had 'the distinguished bearing and perfect natural manners of an ancient and proud civilization'. Further down the social scale were the 'common people', 'extraordinarily friendly... always cheery', who 'unwashed as they may be... are always laughing'. Certainly, as Richardson notes, with little exaggeration, visitors of different nationalities 'all agree in describing the Tibetans as kind, gentle, honest, open and cheerful': this was one of the attractions of service there. But this portrayal of Tibet in positive and sympathetic terms also served cadre interests by creating the impression of Tibet as a worthy ally. [67]

There were few aspects of the British knowledge of Tibet which could not be used as supporting elements of the core image they sought to project. Evidence of Chinese misrule, or contempt for Tibet, such as their Ambans' failure to learn Tibetan, bolstered Tibet's claim to independence, or contrasted unfavourably with British assistance, and respect for Tibetan culture. Descriptions of the Dalai Lama and his court brought out the well-ordered nature of the society, and the validity of his traditional authority. Phrases such 'The Tibetans believe...' [68] enhanced the image of Tibetans as a unified people.

By emphasising the validity of Tibetan institutions, and the cultural unity of its people, the cadre presented Tibet as a viable and friendly neighbouring state to India, with a historical culture which was of particular value. As we have seen, the cadre were keen to support travellers such as Tucci, who brought out these aspects of Tibet's historical culture. This judgment of Tibetan culture as being of value went beyond the definition of Tibetans by their culture, and clearly implied the possession of qualities which were of 'rare value to the rich diversity of the world'.[69] Tibet was promoted as possessing qualities which the West had lost, as will be seen in Section 6.10.

The reliance on a particular class of allies within Tibet, the Lhasa ruling elite, meant that the British constructed this image in line with the perspective of that elite; it was a Lhasa-centric image, which reflected a delicate balance between the requirements of the British and their Lhasa allies. The British understanding of states as defined by their centre, and their alliance with elements of the Lhasa ruling class, meant that the Lhasa perspective was privileged, and regional perspectives (including those of British observers such as W.H. King referred to in Chapter Two) were submerged.

This perspective was by no means a distortion, but regional and sectarian differences may have been subsumed by this image of unity under the unquestioned religious and secular authority of the Dalai Lama. The information obtained from the Lhasa ruling class did not, for example, articulate the interests of Eastern Tibetan principalities which sometimes aspired to closer ties with China. The need to define Tibetan structures in terms of European political formations may have prevented a fuller understanding of Tibet's power structures, relations with its neighbours, and aspirations.

The image of Tibet created by the British became the dominant political image held in the West, and, as it reflected their perspective, it has been largely accepted as accurate by the Tibetan Government-in-exile.
Those aspects in which scholarship might question its accuracy are those where alternative voices are revealed, albeit without emphasis, in the available British sources. Thus questions should be asked concerning the social harmony, and sense of national and religious identity, of various communities outside Tibet's central provinces of U and Tsang, and of groups such as the Ragyaba, disposers of the dead, whose status virtually equated to India's 'untouchables'.

Such work as has been done in this area does not, however, suggest it is liable to lead to any major revisions of the received image of Tibet beyond a more balanced view of the aspirations of marginalised groups in Tibetan society. Tibet does appear to have been a relatively homogeneous society, with little opposition to the Dalai Lama's rule, and, as the British image reflects the perspective of the Dalai Lama's Government, it is a close reflection of the self-image of the Lhasa Tibetan ruling class, which remains the dominant Tibetan voice today.[70]

So what's the box score?

Let’s examine the history of the 14 Dalai Lamas:

1. The First Dalai Lama didn't even know he was one.
2. The Second Dalai Lama didn't know it either.
3. The Third Dalai Lama was a clever opportunist who usurped the good reputation of the first two “Dalai Lamas” by inventing the lineage and making himself third.
4. The Fourth Dalai Lama was a royal appointee.
5. The Fifth Dalai Lama was a killer-conqueror, and his last fifteen years of "rule" were fraudulent.
6. The Sixth Dalai Lama was murdered at the age of 23, and his appointed successor was denied office.
7. The Seventh Dalai Lama was put on the throne by the Chinese, who treated him as a figurehead.
8. The Eighth Dalai Lama was a hands-off guy who let the Chinese run the country.
9. The Ninth Dalai Lama was murdered and never ruled.
10. The Tenth Dalai Lama was murdered and never ruled.
11. The Eleventh Dalai Lama was murdered and never ruled.
12. The Twelfth Dalai Lama was murdered and never ruled.
13. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama fled twice, and rejected a defense pact from Britain that would have protected Tibet from Chinese aggression.
14. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama abdicated, never ruled the country, and has won the Nobel Peace Prize without garnering any peace.

In the end, the illustrious history of the Dalai Lamas just doesn't exist. Their sad legacy is a testament to the Byzantine manipulations of the Potala Junta. The credulous Tibetan people have been taught that they are led by a god-king, but that king is an invention of unscrupulous political strategists who sell influence as their primary product.

-- The Dalai Lamas, Prisoners of the Potala Junta, by Charles Carreon

-- Tibet and the British Raj, 1904-47: The Influence of the Indian Political Department Officers, by Alexander McKay

The Chinese were to leave in three groups. The first group departed; but the other two began fighting again from their base at the Tengyeling monastery. The Tibetans were severe with them, cutting off their food supplies and reducing them to a state of starvation. Finally, they were forced to surrender. On January 6, 1913, Chungyin and the last of the Chinese troops were forcibly set upon the road to India. Some monks of the Tengyeling monastery, fearing punishment, disguised themselves as Chinese soldiers and accompanied the party to India.

The Tibetan government sent a representative to escort the Chinese up to the Dzalep-la pass. Those who were unable or unwilling to make their way back to China settled down in India in Kalimpong, Darjeeling, and Calcutta, and some stayed in Sikkim. Their descendants are still living in those places today.

On the sixteenth day of the twelfth month of the Water-Mouse year (in January 1913), the Dalai Lama finally returned to Lhasa amid great pomp and celebration.



1. Documents.

2. The account given here of Chao Erh-feng and the 1910 invasion of Tibet is based on SIMLA and on information acquired from officials and citizens associated with the events.

3. In addition to Feng-chien's remark and his measures for reform, his followers had been guilty of pillaging the Tibetans (Younghusband, pp. 369-70).

4. Ma Ti-T'ai is the spelling of this general's name in Tibetan records; but Teichman gives it as Ma Wei-ch'i.

5. Teichman, pp. 21-22.

6. According to Younghusband (p. 371), Chao Erh-feng led some 2,000 foreign-drilled troops, equipped with rifles of German make and four field-guns, when he attacked the monasteries.

7. Teichman (p. 33) says that Fu Sung-mu, the chief assistant of Chao Erh-feng, proposed that the area be made a Chinese province to be called Hsikang.

8. Although some sources state that Chao Erh-feng himself marched to Lhasa with his troops -- cf. E.T. Williams, Tibet and Her Neighbors (Berkeley, 1937), p. 121, and Zahiruddin Ahmed, China and Tibet, 1708-1959 (Oxford, 1960), p. 18 -- it is clear that Chao Erh-feng never traveled beyond Chamdo, where he set up his headquarters.

9. See Teichman, p. 27, for the telegraphic appeals made by the Tibetan government to the foreign powers of Europe and America.

10. This officer, called Wu Kon-tai in Tibetan sources, was later captured in eastern Tibet and sentenced to life imprisonment at Sengye Dzong.

11. Macdonald served as the Trade Agent at Yatung for about twenty years (1905-25). He authored books on Tibet, including The Land of the Lama (London, 1929) and Twenty Years in Tibet (London, 1932).

12. Bell, p. 109.

13. Documents.

14. Li, p. 67.

15. According to Tibetan records, the name of Chao's deputy was Din Kon-tai. Teichman (p. 33) states that Chao's place on the frontier was assumed by General Fu Sung-mu, his chief assistant.

16. After leaving Chamdo, Chao Erh-feng became the governor of Sze-chuan. In 1912 he was executed by Yin Ch'ang-heng, a revolutionary leader (Teichman, p. 41). Also see Williams, Tibet and Her Neighbors, p. 122.

17. Li, p. 131; Portrait, p. 354; Williams, p. 123.

18. Documents.

19. Portrait, p. 135; Richardson, p. 105.
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:05 am

Part 4 of 4

Chapter 15. Further Evidence of Tibetan Independence

As a result of the Dalai Lama's constant efforts from Darjeeling and the persistent struggle of the Tibetans themselves, every single hostile Chinese was driven out of central Tibet. A number remained in Kham, but the Tibetans were in the process of driving these out as well when the Dalai Lama returned to his capital.

Shortly after his return to Lhasa, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation to all his officials and subjects throughout Tibet. This proclamation, as well as the earlier refusal of Yuan Shih-kai's offer of rank, are regarded in Tibet as formal declarations of independence. This proclamation is dated the eighth day of the first month of the Water-Ox year (1913):

I, the Dalai Lama, most omniscient possessor of the Buddhist faith, whose title was conferred by the Lord Buddha's command from the glorious land of India, speaks to you as follows:

I am speaking to all classes of Tibetan people. Lord Buddha, from the glorious country of India, prophesied that the reincarnations of Avalokitesvara, through successive rulers from the early religious kings to the present day, would look after the welfare of Tibet.

During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Ch'ing dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China co-operated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. A few years ago, the Chinese authorities in Szechuan and Yunnan endeavored to colonize our territory. They brought large numbers of troops into central Tibet on the pretext of policing the trade marts. I, therefore, left Lhasa with my ministers for the Indo-Tibetan border, hoping to clarify to the Manchu Emperor by wire that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. There was no other choice for me but to cross the border, because Chinese troops were following with the intention of taking me alive or dead.

On my arrival in India, I dispatched several telegrams to the Emperor; but his reply to my demands was delayed by corrupt officials at Peking. Meanwhile, the Manchu Empire collapsed. The Tibetans were encouraged to expel the Chinese from central Tibet. I, too, returned safely to my rightful and sacred country, and I am now in the course of driving out the remnants of Chinese troops from Do Kham in eastern Tibet. Now, the Chinese intention of colonizing Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky. Having once again achieved for ourselves a period of happiness and peace, I have now allotted to all of you the following duties to be carried out without negligence:

(1) Peace and happiness in this world can only be maintained by preserving the faith of Buddhism. It is, therefore, essential to preserve all Buddhist institutions in Tibet, such as the Jokhang temple and Ramoche in Lhasa, Samye, and Traduk in southern Tibet, and the three great monasteries, etc.

(2) The various Buddhist sects in Tibet should be kept in a distinct and pure form. Buddhism should be taught, learned, and meditated upon properly. Except for special persons, the administrators of monasteries are forbidden to trade, loan money, deal in any kind of livestock, and/or subjugate another's subjects.

(3) The Tibetan government's civil and military officials, when collecting taxes or dealing with their subject citizens, should carry out their duties with fair and honest judgment so as to benefit the government without hurting the interests of the subject citizens. Some of the central government officials posted at Ngari Korsum in western Tibet , and Do Kham in eastern Tibet, are coercing their subject citizens to purchase commercial goods at high prices and have imposed transportation rights exceeding the limit permitted by the government. Houses, properties, and lands belonging to subject citizens have been confiscated on the pretext of minor breaches of the law. Furthermore, the amputation of citizens’ limbs has been carried out as a form of punishment. Henceforth, such severe punishments are forbidden.

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious developments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

5. Tibet, although thinly populated, is an extensive country. Some local officials and landholders are jealously obstructing other people from developing vacant lands, even though they are not doing so themselves. People with such intentions are enemies of the State and our progress. From now on, no one is allowed to obstruct anyone else from cultivating whatever vacant lands are available. Land taxes will not be collected until three years have passed; after that the land cultivator will have to pay taxes to the government and to the landlord every year, proportionate to the rent. The land will belong to the cultivator.

Your duties to the government and to the people will have been achieved when you have executed all that I have said here. This letter must be posted and proclaimed in every district of Tibet, and a copy kept in the records of the offices in every district.

From the Potala Palace. (Seal of the Dalai Lama)1 [1. DOCUMENTS: Miscellaneous Documents of the Government of Tibet.]

About one month before the Dalai Lama's proclamation of independence in Tibet, a treaty was entered into by Tibet and Mongolia on the fourth day of the twelfth month of the Water-Mouse year (January 1913), which was signed at Urga. In that treaty, both countries declared themselves free from Manchu rule and separate from China. As sovereign states, they agreed to strengthen the ties of friendship and religion already existing between them. The Dalai Lama, as Sovereign of Tibet, approved of the formation of an independent Mongolian state, while the Jetsun Dampa Hutuktu acknowledged Tibet as an independent and sovereign state.2

After the Dalai Lama's arrival in Lhasa, Regent Tsemonling resigned, having been rewarded with the title Sha-cin-til-gig-che for his competent work during the Dalai Lama's exile. Chamba Tendar was made a Kalon and Trimon was appointed deputy commander-in-chief, with the title of Teji. Dazang Dadul was made senior commander-in-chief with the title of Dzasa. He married the daughters of the late Kalon Tsarong and took the latter's family name, thus coming into possession of Tsarong's estates, family rights, and retainers. Eight nomadic estates in Dam were given to the Sera monastery in reward for its loyal services, while the Ganden monastery acquired half the district of Tsona. In a similar way, all those who had worked for the return of the Dalai Lama were rewarded with titles and estates.

The Tengyceling monastery was disendowed. Its guilty monks were exiled and the rest dispersed to other monasteries. Punishments were inflicted on all those who had cooperated with the Chinese. On the other hand, those Chinese who had lived in Tibet for generations and had offered no resistance to the Tibetans were permitted to remain in Tibet.

The thirteenth Dalai Lama was the first to introduce paper currency into Tibet. Notes were issued in denominations of five, ten, fifteen, twenty-five and fifty tamka. The paper used was hand-made and the design traditional. After a few years, two students were sent to Calcutta to make a study of the printing of Indian currency, and on their return to Tibet, they increased the highest denomination to one hundred sang. Postage stamps were introduced at that time, and a little later, gold and silver coins were minted.

The close relationship that had developed between the Dalai Lama and the British government resulted in the latter sponsoring the education of four Tibetan students, who were sent to England for a Western education. Khenrab Kunzang Mondrong majored in mining engineering, but on his return to Tibet he did not have the opportunity to put his specialty into practice. Instead, he became the Dalai Lama's personal interpreter and also served as superintendent of the Lhasa police. The second boy, Sonam Gompo Gokharwa, studied military science; but he died shortly after his return to Tibet. The third boy, Rigzin Dorje Ringang, became an electrician. When he returned, he introduced electrification into the city of Lhasa and the Dalai Lama's summer palace. He was also employed as a translator to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government. The fourth boy, Wangdu Norbu Kyibuk, was trained in survey work and telegraphy. He developed further the telegraph network in Tibet and also became a magistrate in Lhasa, working for some time in the Foreign Bureau. The boys had been accompanied to England by Tsepa Lungshar, a brilliant but volatile, ambitious man who learned a great deal in England. On his return to Tibet, he became a Finance Secretary and Head of the Military Department. After the death of the thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1933, he attempted to bring about a revolution in Tibet, but failed in the attempt.

In 1913 a retired Japanese military expert, Yasujiro Yajima, visited Lhasa and was given charge of one section of the Tibetan army, which he trained in Japanese methods of warfare. During his six years in Tobet, Yajima adopted Tibetan manners and customs; but the headquarters he built for the Dalai Lama's bodyguards were created in Japanese traditional style. Another Japanese, Togan Tada, who knew the Tibetan language, came to Tibet in 1913 and lived as a monk in the Sera monastery for eleven years. He was well versed in Buddhist philosophy. (In 1961 he was instrumental in bringing some Tibetans to Japan for Buddhist studies. He now lives in Tokyo.) A third Japanese, Bunkyo Aoki,3 came to Tibet in 1912 to stay first for a year in the Drepung monastery and then one and one half years with Phunkhang in Lhasa.

The Dalai Lama was determined to clear the hostile Chinese out of Kham. He speeded up army recruitment and imported equipment from aboard that could not be made in Tibet. Food stocks were increased. For the first time, a council minister (Kalon) was sent to Kham as the governor, with overall civil and military authority. Kalon Chamba Tendar was the minister appointed to the governorship, He took with him eight generals,4 a large civil and military staff, and carried full authority to appoint members of his staff as administrators in the districts over which he exercised control.

While exerting military pressure on the Chinese, the Dalai Lama continued to press the British into arranging a tripartite conference.5 The Chinese did not like the idea of British mediation in their affairs with the Tibetans, but they could find no alternative. They had watched Mongolia pass under Russian control and were apprehensive of Tibet coming under the influence of the British. The Chinese wanted the conference to be held either in Peking or London and they did not agree to the Tibetan representatives being accorded equal status with the Chinese and British representatives. By making such objections, they hoped to delay the conference for some time, but the presence of the Tibetan troops under Chamba Tendar in Kham made them reconsider their position.

The British charge d'affaires informed the Chinese that the representatives were to attend the conference on equal footing. By sending its plenipotentiary, Ivan Chen, to the tripartite conference, the Chinese government in effect had accorded equal status to the Tibetan representative and recognized the treaty-making powers of Tibet.6

In the credentials of the Tibetan plenipotentiary, issued by the Dalai Lama, is stated: "I hereby authorize Sridzin Shatra Paljor Dorje to decide all matters that may be beneficial to Tibet, and I authorize him to seal all such documents."

The plenipotentiary, Lonchen Paljor Dorje Shatra, with Teji Norbu Wangyal Trimon as his assistant, as well as monastic representatives, arrived at Darjeeling, where they received a telegram from Sir Henry McMahon, the Secretary in the Indian Foreign Department and the British plenipotentiary to the conference, asking them to proceed immediately to Simla. A liaison officer escorted them. When they arrived at Simla, they were met at the little railway station by Charles Bell and the Viceroy's secretary. Lonchen Shatra called on the Viceroy and Sir Henry McMahon soon after his arrival. His visit was returned by McMahon and the Viceroy's secretary. The Viceroy entertained the Tibetan and Chinese representatives at a banquet, where he made a speech expressing his hope that the conference would result in a settlement agreeable to all parties concerned.

At a preliminary meeting, the British were represented by Sir Henry McMahon, assisted by Charles Bell and Archibald Rose; the Chinese by Ivan Chen and an assistant. The Tibetans were represented by Lonchen Paljor Dorje Shatra, assisted by Teji Trimon. Credentials were exchanged between the plenipotentiaries, and the Tibetans were asked to produce their proposals on the following day.

Lonchen Shatra told Charles Bell that the Dalai Lama wanted the following terms included in the agreement: that (1) Tibet was to manage her own internal affairs and (2) external affairs, with reference to the British on important issues; that (3) no Chinese Amban, officials, or soldiers would be stationed in Tibet, only traders; and that (4) Tibetan territory would include the eastern region up to Tachienlu, some of which had passed under Chinese control.7

The Tibetans produced evidence to show that Tibet had been an independent state from earlier times up to the present and that the relationship between the fifth Dalai Lama and the Manchu Emperor had been of a purely religious nature, even though the Chinese interpreted it as a political union. The Tibetan official showed that, as a result of Chao Erh-feng sending Chinese troops into Tibet on the pretext of policing the trade marts, war had broken out and the Chinese expelled. The Tibetans were seeking confirmation of their independence and the acknowledgement of the Dalai Lama as the spiritual and temporal sovereign of Tibet. They demanded that the Conventions of 1906 and 1908, signed at Peking and Calcutta respectively, be declared invalid. They pressed for a frontier with China that would include all Tibetan peoples and territories up to the Kokonor in the northeast, and to Tachienlu in the cast. They wanted a continuation of their religious relationship with the Buddhist monasteries in Inner Mongolia and China. Finally, they demanded idemnity from the Chinese for the destruction and loss of property caused in Lhasa and the Kham region by Chao Erh-feng's troops.

The Chinese based their claim to Tibet on its conquest by Genghis Khan. The fifth Dalai Lama, they said, was given a title by the Manchu Emperor. At the time of the invasion of Tibet by the Dzungar Mongols, and later by the Gurkhas, they said the Chinese army had come to the assistance of Tibet. They alleged that in the time of the K'ang-hsi Emperor, the Tibetans had asked for the presence of a Manchu Amban in Lhasa to advise the Tibetan government and for Chinese troops to protect the country. They claimed that Chao Erh-feng had come to eastern Tibet to investigate the murder of the Amban, Feng-chien, at Bah, and that troops were sent to Lhasa to police the trade marts in accordance with the terms of the 1908 Trade Agreement. They said that, because the Dalai Lama had not taken the advice of the Amban, Yu-Kang, but listened instead, to Dorjieff, the British had come to Lhasa in 1904. As a result of that expedition, China had paid an indemnity of twenty-five lakhs of rupees (166,000 pounds sterling) on behalf of the Tibetan government; consequently, it felt entitled to claim Tibet as an integral part of China. The Chinese insisted on the right to station an Amban in Tibet, with 2,600 troops, to control the foreign and military affairs of the country. One thousand of those troops would remain with the Amban and the remainder would be stationed wherever he decided. Their avowed aim was to restore the political status of Tibet to that described in the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906. Finally, they insisted that the boundary between China and Tibet should be placed at Gyamda, not far to the east of Lhasa.

The Chinese claims were verbal and there was no historical foundation for many of their statements. They could produce no records to prove Chinese administration of the territories in eastern Tibet. The Tibetans, on the other hand, went to the Simla conference well prepared. They produced extensive documentary evidence to support their claims. They offered in evidence fifty-six volumes of government documents, consisting of revenue records, lists of houses, officials, and headmen in the disputed areas, bonds of allegiance, and others. Sir Henry McMahon signed them in verification of their contents.8

The Tibetans refuted the various Chinese claims. Referring to Genghis Khan's conquest of Tibet, the Tibetan representative pointed out that the Khan was a Mongol, not a Chinese. It was further pointed out that at that time, Mongolia was separate from China; moreover the Khan never took over the actual administration of Tibet. As for the title given the fifth Dalai Lama by the Manchu Emperor, it was in exchange for a title given the Emperor by the Dalai Lama. Regarding the Dzungar Mongols, they were driven out of Tibet by Tibetan forces. In the war with the Gurkhas, the Manchu Emperor had sent imperial troops to help; hut he did so as an ally of the Dalai Lama and not as the sovereign of Tibet. There was no evidence offered that the Tibetans had asked for troops and an Amban in the time of the K'ang-hsi Emperor.9 As for the indemnity China paid for the 1904 British expedition, it was a fact that the British government had reduced the indemnity and then the Chinese quickly paid it, without being asked to do so by the Tibetans. To further refute this last claim, Lonchen Shatra recalled that a Mongolian nobleman had paid compensation to the Nepalese on behalf of the Tibetans, when Nepalese shops were looted in Lhasa; but that did not give Mongolia any claims on Tibet.

In an attempt to resolve the irreconcilable stands taken by the Chinese and Tibetan representatives, Sir Henry McMahon, on February 17, 1914, proposed a division of the disputed area into Inner and Outer Tibet, with Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. The Tibetans were unwilling to accept any form of Chinese overlordship in Tibet, and the Chinese were unwilling to accept the proposed boundaries; but for the sake of settling the dispute, the Tibetans reluctantly agreed to McMahon's proposal.

Under the terms of the proposed convention, Britain and China would recognize that Tibet was under the suzerainty of China. China would recognize the autonomy of Outer Tibet and would agree to abstain from interfering in the administration of that area, as well as in the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama. China was not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province, and Britain was to make no annexations. The Chinese would not send troops into Outer Tibet or attempt to station officials or establish colonies there. All Chinese troops and officials still in Tibet had to be withdrawn within three months of the signing of the Convention. The Chinese would be permitted to send a high official, with an escort not to exceed three hundred men, to reside in Lhasa. The governments of Great Britain and China agreed not to enter into any negotiations regarding Tibet, either between themselves or with any foreign power. But the Treaty of September 7, 1904 between Tibet and Great Britain specifically states that Tibet and Great Britain may make treaties directly.

Article nine of the Convention described the Sino-Tibetan boundary and the other borders in the following way: "For the purpose of the present Convention the borders of Tibet, and the boundary between Inner and Outer Tibet, shall be as shown in red and blue respectively on the map attached thereto."10

In the notes of exchange, which were to follow the main body of the convention, Tibet is mentioned as being "a part of Chinese territory", a concession determinedly resisted by the Tibetans and which was not stated in the main text. Other stipulations made in the notes included one saying that Outer Tibet would not be represented in the Chinese Parliament, and another limiting the British Trade Agencies' escorts to seventy-five per cent of that of the Chinese high official.

Although Ivan Chen initialed the draft of the Simla Convention, the government of China ordered him not to sign the final document. The continuous counter-proposals and delays began to annoy the British. Finally, the following communication was sent to the Chinese government on June 25, 1914: "As it is, the patience of His Majesty's Government is exhausted and they have no alternative but to inform the Chinese Government that, unless the Convention is signed before the end of the month, His Majesty's Government will hold themselves free to sign separately with Tibet."11 Nevertheless, the Chinese government still refused.

Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Shatra then proceeded to sign the final document, with the following included:

The plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet accept the following treaty. The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Tibet will recognize and abide by the Convention already concluded. The powers granted to China under the Convention shall not be recognized by Great Britain and Tibet until and unless the Government of China ratifies the Convention. This treaty, in two copies each of the English and Tibetan versions respectively, has been sealed and signed on the tenth day of the fifth month of the Wood-Tiger year, corresponding to July 3, 1914.12

The governments of Great Britain and Tibet subsequently ratified the Convention; but the government of China refused to do so. The ratification of the Convention by Great Britain and Tibet in effect eliminated Chinese claims of suzerainty over Tibet and reaffirmed Tibetan independence and treaty-making powers. Subsequently, the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries signed a new trade regulation consisting of eleven articles to replace those regulations made in 1893 and 1908, which were canceled under Article VII of the Simla Convention.13

In fixing boundaries of defence for India, the British twice attempted to define areas of Tibetan territory as 'Indian'. As we have seen, Younghusband tried to make the Chumbi Valley part of India, but Whitehall prevented this, in a significant step towards imposing central control over frontier policy. In the previous century such measures as Younghusband's were almost invariably the prelude for the extension of the frontiers of the British Empire, but now Whitehall had called a halt to expansion, and the frontiersmen were forced to accept Whitehall's authority. Instead of being absorbed into India, and subjected to a process of 'Indianisation', the British defined the Chumbi as Tibetan, and encouraged Lhasa to exert its authority there.[37]

The cadre did not, however, abandon their efforts to secure a border which served India's strategic interests by securing possible invasion routes from, or to, Tibet. Having failed to gain control of the Chumbi, they turned their attention to Tawang, which, as Lamb states, Bell sought to bring inside India 'as a potential replacement for the Chumbi Valley... as a British outpost on the Tibetan plateau: from thence would radiate British political, cultural and economic influence'.[38]

Bell used the Simla Convention to annex Tawang and several smaller areas. In addition to the Convention itself, negotiated between Britain, China and Tibet, there were two separate agreements made then between the British and the Tibetans. These were formalised through an exchange of notes, which were attached to the Convention. One note placed the British Trade Agencies on a firmer footing, the other made Tawang part of India.[39] Tawang was unquestionably part of Tibet prior to 1914, and accepted as such by both Bell and the Government of India. But as Bell advised his government, the Simla Convention meant 'the cession by Tibet to us of the Tawang district.... Also... other tracts of Tibetan territory on... the north-east frontier’.[40]

There is no record of how Bell, the guiding hand in MacMahon’s Simla negotiations, persuaded Lonchen Shatra, the Tibetan Chief Minister and representative at the Simla Convention, to agree to cede Tawang. Certainly it was not with the Dalai Lama’s approval. As Bell himself described, the Tibetan leader publicly demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the results of his Minister's negotiations by summoning Lonchen Shatra for an interview at 6 a.m. and then making him wait until 5 p.m. for the audience.[41] But it appears that, in this instance, the dictates of the cadre's primary purpose, ensuring the security of India, meant their allies' claims, however well-founded, were disregarded.

Lonchen Shatra may simply have been naive. The newly independent Tibetan Government were grateful to Bell and his government for sheltering them during their exile, and were concerned with the threat from China, not India. Bell's notes record his plan to absorb Tawang into India, while avoiding direct payment, which would 'make us a party to interference with the integrity of Tibet'. Bell suggested that money should be given later, 'for some supposedly unconnected purpose'. In the event, a different currency was used. A month after Tibet signed the Treaty, and ceded Tawang, the Government of India supplied it with five thousand rifles and half a million rounds of ammunition. [42]

An incidental consequence of the annexation of Tawang may have been Drepung monasteries’s opposition to the British; Tawang monastery paid annual tribute to Loseling College of Drepung, which ceased when the British took over. Loseling was at the centre of opposition to Bell's Lhasa visit. [43]

It is doubtful that Whitehall understood the significance of the annexation, or even knew that Tibetan territory had been taken; within a month of the conclusion of the Simla Conference, Britain was at war with Germany, and events on the periphery of empire were given little attention. But the consequences were far-reaching. The loss of Tawang was never accepted by the Tibetans and, as Tibet legally could cede territory only if it was a sovereign state, which China did not accept, the Chinese also refused to recognise its loss. Tawang was to be an important issue in the 1962 Indo-China war.[44]

The British role in defining the Tibetan frontier was obscured until it was brought out by the works of Alastair Lamb. Officers such as Bell and MacDonald made no mention of Tawang in their memoirs; Richardson refers to the situation there as having aroused ’some resentment from the Tibetan Government' but he does not mention its former status.[45]

The British preferred to refer to Tibet's 'natural' or 'traditional' borders, concepts which reinforced the image of Tibet as a state with clearly defined, rather than constructed, frontiers. But the attempted annexation of the Chumbi Valley, the successful commandeering of Tawang, and O'Connor's plan to divide Tibet, are all evidence that the British did not originally perceive Tibet as a single, geographically defined state. Rather they sought to create a Tibet which served the interests of the Government of India. Thus Tibet's southern borders were created, not determined

-- Tibet and the British Raj, 1904-47: The Influence of the Indian Political Department Officers, by Alexander McKay

The boundary demarcation between Tibet and India to the east of Bhutan, commonly referred to as the McMahon Line, was also agreed upon at the Simla Convention. Earlier, in March of 1914, Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Shatra had negotiated the common border and a boundary line drawn on a map. This was given to Lonchen Shatra for confirmation by the Tibetan government. Following are notes that were exchanged between the two plenipotentiaries.

To: Lonchen Shatra, Tibetan Plenipotentiary. In February last, you accepted the India-Tibet frontier from the Isu Razi Pass to the Bhutan frontier as given in the map (two sheets), of which two copies are herewith attached, subject to the confirmation of your Government and the following conditions: (a) the Tibetan ownership of private estates on the British side of the frontier will not be disturbed, and (b) if the sacred places of Tso Karpo and Tsari Sarpa fall within a day's march of the British side of the frontier, they will be included in Tibetan territory and the frontier modified accordingly. I understand that your Government have now agreed to this frontier subject to the above two conditions. I shall be glad to learn definitely from you that this is the case.

You wished to know whether certain dues now collected by the Tibetan Government at Tsona Jong and in Kongbu and Kham from the Monpas and the Lopas for articles sold may still be collected. Mr. Bell has informed you that such details will be settled in a friendly spirit, when you have furnished him the further information, which you have promised.

The final settlement of this India-Tibet frontier will help to prevent causes of future dispute and thus cannot fail to be of great advantage to both Governments. A. H. McMahon, British Plenipotentiary. Delhi, March 24th, 1914.14

Lonchen Shatra sent McMahon a letter accepting the boundary as delineated.

To: Sir Henry McMahon, British Plenipotentiary to the China-Tibet Conference. As it was feared that there might be friction in the future unless the boundary between India and Tibet is clearly defined, I submitted the map, which you sent me in February last, to the Tibetan Government at Lhasa for orders. I have now received orders from Lhasa, and I accordingly agree to the boundary as marked in red on the two copies of the maps signed by you, subject to the conditions mentioned in your letter, dated March 24th, sent to me through Mr. Bell. I have signed and sealed the two copies of the maps. I have kept one copy here and return herewith the other. Sent on the twenty-ninth day of the first month of the Wood-Tiger year (March 24, 1914), by Lonchen Shatra, the Tibetan Plenipotentiary. Seal of Lonchen Shatra.15

On August 4, only a month after the conclusion of the Simla Convention, Great Britain entered into World War I. Lonchen Sholkhang, the joint Prime Minister, was instructed by the Dalai Lama to send a communication to the Political Officer of Sikkim and offer support to Britain in the war against Germany.16 The following is a translation of Lonchen Sholkhang's letter to Basil Gould, the Political Officer of Sikkim at that time.

Dear Mr. Gould: We understand from the recent newspapers and from Lonchen Shatra's letter that the situation in Europe is unstable, owing to the declaration of war by Germany against Britain and France. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, has directed me to write and tell you that, although the Chinese are waging a rigorous war against us in different parts of Kham (eastern Tibet), Tibet is willing to send one thousand Tibetan troops to India, to the support of your Empire, because we realize that the existence of Tibet depends on the continuance of Great Britain's Empire. Kindly reply to my letter at your earliest convenience, after putting our proposals before your Government. With my greeting scarf, Lonchen Sholkhang. Third day of the seventh month of the Wood-Tiger year.17

As the letter was transmitted through Lonchen Shatra, he must have had an English translation made for Basil Gould and kept the original Tibetan letter himself.

The reply from Basil Gould in Sikkim was addressed to Lonchen Shatra, who had transmitted the letter for Lonchen Sholkhang. It read:

Dear Lonchen Shatra: Thank you for your letter dated the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Immediately after I received your letter, I conveyed its substance to our Government in India, and I have received a reply from them saying that the British Government was deeply touched and grateful to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, for his offer to send one thousand Tibetan troops to support the British Government. Please inform His Holiness that the British Government will seek the support of Tibet whenever the need arises. With greeting scarves from B. J. Gould, Political Officer of Sikkim. Twenty-seventh day of the seventh month.18

The Dalai Lama took the Political Officer's letter at face value and, in spite of his preoccupation with the troubled areas of Kham, kept one thousand of his best troops in readiness for helping Britain "Whenever the need arises." Those troops were kept available until the end of World War I.

On the seventeenth day of the ninth month of the Wood-Tiger year (1914), Lonchen Shatra and his delegation returned to Lhasa. After making a full report to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government he commended his assistant, Trimon, for his earlier service in the War Department at Lhasa and for his excellent work at the Simla Convention, particularly for his documentation of the proceedings. As a result of this, Trimon was made a Kalon. Dazang Dadul, known as Tsarong since his marriage, was also made a Kalon, while continuing to act as a commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army.

There was a homeopathic medical college in Tibet at Chakpori; but there was no public school devoted to astrology. The Dalai Lama then founded a public school for both medicine and astrology on the site of the abandoned Tengyeling monastery. The government bore the financial expenditures of all the trainees, who, after completing their studies, were sent to different districts. Free medicine was provided to the poor.

British troops were stationed at Gyantse to protect the trade marts as stipulated in the trade regulations. The Dalai Lama sent Dzasa Dumpa and Teji Doring with some troops to Gyantse to study the British military system. Modern army drill, hitherto unknown to the Tibetans, was now adopted as part of Tibetan military training. Two years later, the military system of the combined Chinese and Mongol army was incorporated into the training of one Tibetan regiment. A Mongol officer, Tenpai Gyaltsen, who had been trained in Russia, was given the command of another regiment, which he disciplined and drilled according to the Russian system. The Japanese officer, Yasujiro Yajima, took over the training of a fourth regiment.

These four regiments, which had been trained in foreign systems, were finally brought to Lhasa, where for four days they were made to parade, maneuver, and engage in competitive exercises before the Dalai Lama, officials of the government, and the public. After this display, it was decided that the Tibetan army would be modeled along British lines thereafter. It was provided with a national flag, which was carried by each regiment, with a regiment number to distinguish one from the other.

The Tibetan government sent Sandrup Phodrang, Dingja Kyibuk, Norgay Nangpa, and a few selected soldiers to Quetta and Shillong to be trained in artillery and machine-gun warfare. The Tibetan army had for some time been increasing in its superiority over the Chinese, and the officers and soldiers were eager to undergo special training and to serve afterwards in Tibet.



1. Documents.

2. For the text of the 1913 treaty with Mongolia, see Bell, pp. 304-05; Richardson, pp. 265-67.

3. Bunkyo Aoko authored a book, titled Study on Early Tibetan Chronicles (Tokyo, 1955), which presents his attempt to rectify the discrepancies in the dates found in early Tibetan history.

4. The eight were Dapon Phulungwa, Dapon Jingpa, Dapon Tethong, Dapon Khyungram, Dapon Tailing, Dapon Tsogo, Dapon Marlampa, and Dapon Takna.

5. The information given here on the Simla conference was obtained from Simla.

6. A recent Indian government report states: "the fact that the Chinese side themselves had referred to these negotiations of the Tibetan Government regarding the boundary showed that the Chinese Government recognised Tibet's right in the past to have foreign relations on her own and deal with matters concerning her boundaries." (Boundary, p. 15.)

7. Bell, p. 152.

8. Simla.

9. The Imperial troops, which came to Lhasa in 1720, had been requested by Lhazang Khan, who had taken over in central Tibet (Petech, p. 55). The first Ambans were stationed in Lhasa in 1728, during the reign of the Yung-cheng Emperor, who was the son of K'ang-hsi (Petech, p. 269).

10. Boundary, p. 110.

11. Boundary, p. 113.

12. For additional details on the Simla conference, see Bell, pp. 148-59. For the complete text of the Simla Convention, see Richardson, pp. 268-72.

13. The full text of the 1914 Regulations are given in Richardson, pp. 272-75.

14. Simla; Richardson, p. 267.

15. Simla; Richardson, p. 268.

16. H. H. Dodwell, ed., The Cambridge History of India, 6 (Cambridge, 1932), p. 77.

17. Simla.

18. Ibid.
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:30 pm

William Bateson
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19



This article is about the English geneticist. For his son the anthropologist and cyberneticist, see Gregory Bateson.

In one respect civilized man differs from all other species of animal or plant in that, having prodigious and ever-increasing power over nature, he invokes these powers for the preservation and maintenance of many of the inferior and all the defective members of his species. The inferior freely multiply, and the defective, if their defects be not so grave as to lead to their detention in prisons or asylums, multiply also without restraint. Heredity being strict in its action, the consequences are in civilized countries much what they would be in the kennels of the dog breeder who continued to preserve all his puppies, good and bad; the proportion of defectives increases. The increase is so considerable that outside every great city there is a smaller town inhabited by defectives and those who wait on them. Round London we have a ring of such towns with some 30,000 inhabitants, of whom about 28,000 are defective, largely, though, of course, by no means entirely bred from previous generations of defectives. Now, it is not for us to consider practical measures. As men of science we observe natural events and deduce conclusions from them. I may perhaps be allowed to say that the remedies proposed in America, in so far as they aim at the eugenic regulation of marriage on a comprehensive scale, strike me as devised without regard to the needs either of individuals or of a modern State. Undoubtedly if they decide to breed their population of one uniform puritan gray, they can do it in a few generations; but I doubt if timid respectability will make a nation happy, and I am sure that qualities of a different sort are needed if it is to compete with more vigorous and more varied communities. Everyone must have a preliminary sympathy with the aims of eugenists both abroad and at home. Their efforts at the least are doing something to discover and spread truth as to the physiological structure of society. The spirit of such organizations, however, almost of necessity suffers from a bias toward the accepted and the ordinary, and if they had power it would go hard with many ingredients of society that could be ill-spared. I notice an ominous passage in which even Galton, the founder of eugenics, feeling perhaps some twinge of his Quaker ancestry, remarks that “as the Bohemianism in the nature of our race is destined to perish, the sooner it goes, the happier for mankind.” It is not the eugenists who will give us what Plato has called divine releases from the common ways. If some fancier with the catholicity of Shakespeare would take us in hand, well and good; but I would not trust even Shakespeares meeting as a committee. Let us remember that Beethoven’s father was an habitual drunkard and that his mother died of consumption. From the genealogy of the patriarchs also we learn, “what may very well be the truth,” that the fathers of such as dwell in tents, and of all such as handle the harp or organ, and the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron – the founders, that is to say of the arts and the sciences – came in direct descent from Cain, and not in the posterity of the irreproachable Seth, who is to us, as he probably was also in the narrow circle of his own contemporaries, what naturalists call a nomen nudum.

Genetic research will make it possible for a nation to elect by what sort of beings it will be represented not very many generations hence, much as a farmer can decide whether his byres shall be full of shorthorns or Herefords. It will be very surprising, indeed, if some nation does not make trial of this new power. They may make awful mistakes, but I think they will try.

Whether we like it or not, extraordinary and far-reaching changes in public opinion are coming to pass. Man is just beginning to know himself for what he is – a rather long-lived animal, with great powers of enjoyment, if he does not deliberately forego them. Hitherto superstition and mythical ideas of sin have predominantly controlled these powers. Mysticism will not die out; for those strange fancies knowledge is no cure; but their forms may change, and mysticism as a force for the suppression of joy is happily losing its hold on the modern world. As in the decay of earlier religions, Ushabti dolls were substituted for human victims, so telepathy, necromancy, and other harmless toys take the place of eschatology and the inculcation of a ferocious moral code. Among the civilized races in Europe we are witnessing an emancipation from traditional control in thought, in art, and in conduct which is likely to have prolonged and wonderful influences. Returning to freer or, if you will, simpler conceptions of life and death, the coming generations are determined to get more out of this world than their forefathers did. Is it, then, to be supposed that when science puts into their hand means for the alleviation of suffering immeasurable, and for making this world a happier place, that they will demur to using those powers? The intenser struggle between communities is only now beginning, and with the approaching exhaustion of that capital of energy stored in the earth before man began it must soon become still more fierce. In England some of our great-grandchildren will see the end of the easily accessible coal, and, failing some miraculous discovery of available energy, a wholesale reduction in population. There are races who have shown themselves able at a word to throw off all tradition and take into their service every power that science has yet offered them. Can we expect that they, when they see how to rid themselves of the ever-increasing weight of a defective population, will hesitate? The time can not be far distant when both individuals and communities will begin to think in terms of biological fact, and it behooves those who lead scientific thought carefully to consider whither action should lead. At present I ask you merely to observe the facts. The powers of science to preserve the defective are now enormous. Every year these powers increase. This course of action must read a limit. To the deliberate intervention of civilization for the preservation of inferior strains there must sooner or later come an end, and before long nations will realize the responsibility they have assumed in multiplying these “cankers of a calm world and a long peace.”

The definitely feeble-minded we may with propriety restrain, as we are beginning to do even in England, and we may safely prevent unions in which both parties are defective, for the evidence shows that as a rule such marriages, though often prolific, commonly produce no normal children at all. The union of such social vermin we should no more permit than we would allow parasites to breed on our own bodies. Further than that in restraint of marriage we ought not to go, at least not yet. Something, too, may be done by a reform of medical ethics. Medical students are taught that it is their duty to prolong life at whatever cost in suffering. This may have been right when diagnosis was uncertain and interference usually of small effect, but deliberately to interfere now for the preservation of an infant so gravely diseased that it can never be happy or come to any good is very like wanton cruelty. In private few men defend such interference. Most who have seen these cases lingering on agree that the system is deplorable, but ask where can any line be drawn. The biologist would reply that in all ages such decisions have been made by civilized communities with fair success both in regard to crime and in the closely analogous case of lunacy. The real reason why these things are done is because the world collectively cherishes occult views of the nature of life, because the facts are realized by few, and because between the legal mind – to which society has become accustomed to defer – and the seeing eye, there is such physiological antithesis that hardly can they be combined in the same body. So soon as scientific knowledge becomes common property, views more reasonable and, I may add, more humane, are likely to prevail.

To all these great biological problems that modern society must sooner or later face there are many aspects besides the obvious ones. Infant mortality we are asked to lament without the slightest thought of what the world would be like if the majority of these infants were to survive. The decline in the birth rate in countries already overpopulated is often deplored, and we are told that a nation in which population is not rapidly increasing must be in a decline. The slightest acquaintance with biology, or even schoolboy natural history, shows that this inference may be entirely wrong, and that before such a question can be decided in one way or the other hosts of considerations must be taken into account. In normal stable conditions population is stationary. The laity never appreciates what is so clear to a biologist, that the last century and a quarter corresponding with the great rise in population has been an altogether exceptional period. To our species this period has been what its early years in Australia were to the rabbit. The exploitation of energy capital of the earth in coal, development of the new countries, and the consequent pouring of food into Europe, the application of antiseptics, these are the things that have enabled the human population to increase. I do not doubt that if population were more evenly spread over the earth it might increase very much more, but the essential fact is that under any stable conditions a limit must be reached. A pair of wrens will bring off a dozen young every year, but each year you will find the same number of pairs in your garden. In England the limit beyond which under present conditions of distribution increase of population is a source of suffering rather than of happiness had been reached already. Younger communities living in territories largely vacant are very probably right in desiring and encouraging more population. Increase may, for some temporary reason, be essential to their prosperity. But those who live, as I do, among thousands of creatures in a state of semistarvation will realize that too few is better than too many, and will acknowledge the wisdom of Ecclesiasticus who said, “Desire not a multitude of unprofitable children.”

But at least it is often urged that the decline in the birth rate of the intelligent and successful sections of the population (I am speaking of the older communities) is to be regretted. Even this can not be granted without qualification. As the biologist knows, differentiation is indispensable to progress. If population were homogeneous civilization would stop. In every army the officers must be comparatively few. Consequently, if the upper strata of the community produce more children than will recruit their numbers some must fall into the lower strata and increase the pressure there. Statisticians tell us that an average of four children under present conditions is sufficient to keep the number constant, and as the expectation of life is steadily improving we may perhaps contemplate some diminution of that number without alarm.

In the study of history biological treatment is only beginning to be applied....

Such a problem is raised in a striking form by the population of modern Greece, and especially of Athens. The racial characteristics of the Athenian and of the fifth century B.C. are vividly described by Galton in “Hereditary Genius.” The fact that in that period a population, numbering many thousands, should have existed, capable of following the great plays at a first hearing, reveling in subtleties of speech, and thrilling with passionate delight in beautiful things, is physiologically a most singular phenomenon. On the basis of the number of illustrious men produced by that age Galton estimated the average intelligence as at least two of his degrees above our own, differing from us as much as we do from the Negro. A few generations later the display was over. The origin of that constellation of human genius which then blazed out is as yet beyond all biological analysis, but I think we are not altogether without suspicion of the sequence of the biological events. If I visit a poultry breeder who has a fine stock of thoroughbred game fowls breeding true, and 10 years later – that is to say, 10 fowl-generations later – I go again and find scarcely a recognizable game fowl on the place, I know exactly what has happened. One or two birds of some other or of no breed must have strayed in and their progeny been left undestroyed. Now, in Athens, we have many indications that up to the beginning of the fifth century so long as the phratries and gentes were maintained in their integrity there was rather close endogamy, a condition giving the best chance of producing a homogeneous population. There was no lack of material from which intelligence and artistic power might be derived. Sporadically these qualities existed throughout the ancient Greek world from the dawn of history, and, for example, the vase painters, the makers of the Tanagra figurines, and the gem cutters were presumably pursuing family crafts, much as are the actor families [7] of England or the professional families of Germany at the present day. How the intellectual strains should have acquired predominance we can not tell, but in an in-breeding community homogeneity at least is not surprising. At the end of the sixth century came the “reforms” of Cleisthenes (507 B.C.), which sanctioned foreign marriages and admitted to citizenship a number not only of resident aliens but also of manumitted slaves. As Aristotle says, Cleisthenes legislated with the deliberate purpose of breaking up the phratries and gentes, in order that the various sections of the population might be mixed up as much as possible, and the old tribal associations abolished. The “reform” was probably a recognition and extension of a process already begun; but is it too much to suppose that we have here the effective beginning of a series of genetic changes which in a few generations so greatly altered the character of the people? Under Pericles the old law was restored (451 B.C.), but losses in the great wars led to further laxity in practice, and though at the end of the fifth century the strict rule was reenacted that a citizen must be of citizen birth on both sides, the population by that time may well have become largely mongrelized.

-- Heredity, by Prof. William Bateson, M.A., F.R.S.

William Bateson
Born 8 August 1861
Whitby, Yorkshire[1]
Died 8 February 1926 (aged 64)
Nationality British
Alma mater St. John's College, Cambridge
Known for heredity and biological inheritance
Awards Royal Medal (1920)
Scientific career
Fields genetics

William Bateson (8 August 1861 – 8 February 1926) was an English biologist who was the first person to use the term genetics to describe the study of heredity, and the chief populariser of the ideas of Gregor Mendel following their rediscovery in 1900 by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns. His 1894 book Materials for the Study of Variation was one of the earliest formulations of the new approach to genetics.


Crayon drawing by the biologist Dennis G. Lillie, 1909

Bateson was born in Whitby on the Yorkshire coast, the son of William Henry Bateson, Master of St John's College, Cambridge. He was educated at Rugby School and at St John's College in Cambridge, where he graduated BA in 1883 with a first in natural sciences.[2]

Taking up embryology, he went to the United States to investigate the development of Balanoglossus.

Balanoglossus is an ocean-dwelling acorn worm (Enteropneusta) genus of great zoological interest because, being a Hemichordate, it is an "evolutionary link" between invertebrates and vertebrates. Balanoglossus is a deuterostome, and resembles the Ascidians or sea squirts, in that it possesses branchial openings, or "gill slits". It has notochord in the upper part of the body and has no nerve chord. It does have a stomochord, however, which is gut chord within the collar. Their heads may be as small as 2.5 mm (1/10 in) or as large as 5 mm (1/5 in).

-- Balanoglossus, by Wikipedia

This worm-like enteropneust hemichordate led to his interest in vertebrate origins. In 1883-4 he worked in the laboratory of William Keith Brooks, at the Chesapeake Zoölogical Laboratory in Hampton, Virginia.[3] Turning from morphology to study evolution and its methods, he returned to England and became a Fellow of St John's. Studying variation and heredity, he travelled in western Central Asia.

Work on biological variation (to 1900)

Bateson's work published before 1900 systematically studied the structural variation displayed by living organisms and the light this might shed on the mechanism of biological evolution,[4] and was strongly influenced by both Charles Darwin's approach to the collection of comprehensive examples, and Francis Galton's quantitative ("biometric") methods.

• THE OBSERVED ORDER OF EVENTS: Steady improvement in the birthright of successive generations; our ignorance of the origin and purport of all existence; of the outcome of life on this earth; of the conditions of consciousness; slow progress of evolution and its system of ruthless routine; man is the heir of long bygone ages; has great power in expediting the course of evolution; he might render its progress less slow and painful; does not yet understand that it may be his part to do so.
• SELECTION AND RACE: Difference between the best specimens of a poor race and the mediocre ones of a high race; typical centres to which races tend to revert; delicacy of highly-bred animals; their diminished fertility; the misery of rigorous selection; it is preferable to replace poor races by better ones; strains of emigrant blood; of exiles.
• INFLUENCE OF MAN UPON RACE: Conquest, migrations, etc.; sentiment against extinguishing races; is partly unreasonable; the so-called "aborigines"; on the variety and number of different races inhabiting the same country; as in Spain; history of the Moors; Gypsies; the races in Damara Land; their recent changes; races in Siberia; Africa; America; West Indies; Australia and New Zealand; wide diffusion of Arabs and Chinese; power of man to shape future humanity.
• POPULATION: Over-population; Malthus--the danger of applying his prudential check; his originality; his phrase of misery check is in many cases too severe; decaying races and the cause of decay.
• EARLY AND LATE MARRIAGES: Estimate of their relative effects on a population in a few generations; example.
• MARKS FOR FAMILY MERIT: On the demand for definite proposals how to improve race; the demand is not quite fair, and the reasons why; nevertheless attempt is made to suggest the outline of one; on the signs of superior race; importance of giving weight to them when making selections from candidates who are personally equal; on families that have thriven; that are healthy and long-lived; present rarity of our knowledge concerning family antecedents; Mr. F.M. Hollond on the superior morality of members of large families; Sir William Gull on their superior vigour; claim for importance of further inquiries into the family antecedents of those who succeed in after life; probable large effect of any system by which marks might be conferred on the ground of family merit.

-- Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, by Francis Galton

In his first significant contribution,[5] he shows that some biological characteristics (such as the length of forceps in earwigs) are not distributed continuously, with a normal distribution, but discontinuously (or "dimorphically"). He saw the persistence of two forms in one population as a challenge to the then current conceptions of the mechanism of heredity, and says "The question may be asked, does the dimorphism of which cases have now been given represent the beginning of a division into two species?”

In his 1894 book, Materials for the study of variation,[6] Bateson took this survey of biological variation significantly further. He was concerned to show that biological variation exists both continuously, for some characters, and discontinuously for others, and coined the terms "meristic" and "substantive" for the two types. In common with Darwin, he felt that quantitative characters could not easily be "perfected" by the selective force of evolution, because of the perceived problem of the "swamping effect of intercrossing", but proposed that discontinuously varying characters could.

In Materials Bateson noted and named homeotic mutations, in which an expected body-part has been replaced by another. The animal mutations he studied included bees with legs instead of antennae; crayfish with extra oviducts; and in humans, polydactyly, extra ribs, and males with extra nipples. These mutations are in the homeobox genes which control the pattern of body formation during early embryonic development of animals. The 1995 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded for work on these genes. They are thought to be especially important to the basic development of all animals. These genes have a crucial function in many, and perhaps all, animals.[7]

In Materials unaware of Gregor Mendel's results, Bateson wrote concerning the mechanism of biological heredity, "The only way in which we may hope to get at the truth is by the organization of systematic experiments in breeding, a class of research that calls perhaps for more patience and more resources than any other form of biological enquiry. Sooner or later such an investigation will be undertaken and then we shall begin to know." Mendel had cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, performing exactly the experiment Bateson wanted.[8][9][10]

In 1897 he reported some significant conceptual and methodological advances in his study of variation.[11] "I have argued that variations of a discontinuous nature may play a prepondering part in the constitution of a new species." He attempts to silence his critics (the "biometricians") who misconstrue his definition of discontinuity of variation by clarification of his terms: "a variation is discontinuous if, when all the individuals of a population are breeding freely together, there is not simple regression to one mean form, but a sensible preponderance of the variety over the intermediates… The essential feature of a discontinuous variation is therefore that, be the cause what it may, there is not complete blending between variety and type. The variety persists and is not “swamped by intercrossing”. But critically, he begins to report a series of breeding experiments, conducted by Edith Saunders, using the alpine brassica Biscutella laevigata in the Cambridge botanic gardens. In the wild, hairy and smooth forms of otherwise identical plants are seen together. They intercrossed the forms experimentally, “When therefore the well-grown mongrel plants are examined, they present just the same appearance of discontinuity which the wild plants at the Tosa Falls do. This discontinuity is, therefore, the outward sign of the fact that in heredity the two characters of smoothness and hairiness do not completely blend, and the offspring do not regress to one mean form, but to two distinct forms.”

At about this time, Hugo de Vries and Carl Erich Correns began similar plant-breeding experiments. But, unlike Bateson, they were familiar with the extensive plant breeding experiments of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s, and they did not cite Bateson's work. Critically, Bateson gave a lecture to the Royal Horticultural Society in July 1899,[12] which was attended by Hugo de Vries, in which he described his investigations into discontinuous variation, his experimental crosses, and the significance of such studies for the understanding of heredity. He urged his colleagues to conduct large-scale, well-designed and statistically analysed experiments of the sort that, although he did not know it, Mendel had already conducted, and which would be "rediscovered" by de Vries and Correns just six months later.[10]

Founding the discipline of genetics

Further information: Mutationism

Bateson became famous as the outspoken Mendelian antagonist of Walter Raphael Weldon, his former teacher, and of Karl Pearson who led the biometric school of thinking.

Biometrics is the technical term for body measurements and calculations. It refers to metrics related to human characteristics. Biometrics authentication (or realistic authentication)[note 1] is used in computer science as a form of identification and access control.[1][2] It is also used to identify individuals in groups that are under surveillance.[3]

Biometric identifiers are the distinctive, measurable characteristics used to label and describe individuals.[4] Biometric identifiers are often categorized as physiological versus behavioral characteristics.[5] Physiological characteristics are related to the shape of the body. Examples include, but are not limited to fingerprint, palm veins, face recognition, DNA, palm print, hand geometry, iris recognition, retina and odour/scent. Behavioral characteristics are related to the pattern of behavior of a person, including but not limited to typing rhythm, gait, and voice.[6][note 2] Some researchers have coined the term behaviometrics to describe the latter class of biometrics.[7]

More traditional means of access control include token-based identification systems, such as a driver's license or passport, and knowledge-based identification systems, such as a password or personal identification number.[4] Since biometric identifiers are unique to individuals, they are more reliable in verifying identity than token and knowledge-based methods; however, the collection of biometric identifiers raises privacy concerns about the ultimate use of this information.[4][8][9]

-- Biometrics, by Wikipedia

The debate centred on saltationism versus gradualism (Darwin had represented gradualism, but Bateson was a saltationist).[13]

In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. This was historically offered as an alternative to Darwinism. Some forms of mutationism were effectively saltationist, implying large discontinuous jumps.

Speciation, such as by polyploidy in plants, can sometimes be achieved in a single and in evolutionary terms sudden step. Evidence exists for various forms of saltation in a variety of organisms.

-- Saltation (biology), by Wikipedia

Later, Ronald Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane showed that discrete mutations were compatible with gradual evolution, helping to bring about the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Gradualism, from the Latin gradus ("step"), is a hypothesis, a theory or a tenet assuming that change comes about gradually or that variation is gradual in nature and happens over time as opposed to in large steps.[1] Uniformitarianism, incrementalism, and reformism are similar concepts.

-- Gradualism, by Wikipedia

Between 1900 and 1910 Bateson directed a rather informal "school" of genetics at Cambridge. His group consisted mostly of women associated with Newnham College, Cambridge, and included both his wife Beatrice, and her sister Florence Durham.[14][15] They provided assistance for his research program at a time when Mendelism was not yet recognised as a legitimate field of study. The women, such as Muriel Wheldale (later Onslow), carried out a series of breeding experiments in various plant and animal species between 1902 and 1910. The results both supported and extended Mendel's laws of heredity. Hilda Blanche Killby, who had finished her studies with the Newnham College Mendelians in 1901, aided Bateson in the replication of Mendel's crosses in peas. She conducted independent breeding experiments in rabbits and bantam fowl, as well. [16]

Bateson first suggested using the word "genetics" (from the Greek gennō, γεννώ; "to give birth") to describe the study of inheritance and the science of variation in a personal letter to Adam Sedgwick (1854–1913, zoologist at Cambridge, not the Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) who had been Darwin's professor), dated 18 April 1905.[17] Bateson first used the term "genetics" publicly at the Third International Conference on Plant Hybridization in London in 1906.[18] Although this was three years before Wilhelm Johannsen used the word "gene" to describe the units of hereditary information, De Vries had introduced the word "pangene" for the same concept already in 1889, and etymologically the word genetics has parallels with Darwin's concept of pangenesis. Bateson and Edith Saunders also coined the word "allelomorph" ("other form"), which was later shortened to allele.[19]

Bateson co-discovered genetic linkage with Reginald Punnett and Edith Saunders, and he and Punnett founded the Journal of Genetics in 1910. Bateson also coined the term "epistasis" to describe the genetic interaction of two independent loci.

Other biographical information

William Bateson became director of the John Innes Horticultural Institution in 1910 and moved with his family to Merton Park in Surrey. He was director there until his sudden death in February 1926. During his time at the John Innes Horticultural Institution he became interested in the chromosome theory of heredity and promoted the study of cytology by the appointment of W. C. F. Newton[20] and in 1923 Cyril Dean Darlington.[21]

In his later years he was a friend and confidant of the German Erwin Baur. Their correspondence includes their discussion of eugenics.

His son was the anthropologist and cyberneticist Gregory Bateson.

Author [John Riley Perks] (middle), with Gregory Bateson (left) and Jim Herndon (right), at an education workshop at Naropa Institute. Photo: George Holmes

For the unprepared mind, however, LSD can be a nightmare. When the drug is administered in a sterile laboratory under fluorescent lights by white-coated physicians who attach electrodes and nonchalantly warn the subject that he will go crazy for a while, the odds favor a psychotomimetic reaction, or "bummer." This became apparent to poet Allen Ginsberg when he took LSD for the first time at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, in 1959. Ginsberg was already familiar with psychedelic substances, having experimented with peyote on a number of occasions. As yet, however, there was no underground supply of LSD, and it was virtually impossible for layfolk to procure samples of the drug. Thus he was pleased when Gregory Bateson, [Formerly a member of the Research and Analysis Branch of the OSS, Bateson was the husband and co-worker of anthropologist Margaret Mead. An exceptional intellect, he was turned on to acid by Dr. Harold Abramson, one of the CIA's chief LSD specialists] the anthropologist, put him in touch with a team of doctors in Palo Alto. Ginsberg had no way of knowing that one of the researchers associated with the institute, Dr. Charles Savage, had conducted hallucinogenic drug experiments for the US Navy in the early 1950s.

-- Acid Dreams, The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, The Sixties, And Beyond, by Martin A. Lee & Bruce Shlain

-- The Mahasiddha and His Idiot Servant, by John Riley Perks

In June 1894 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society[22] and won their Darwin Medal in 1904 and their Royal Medal in 1920. He also delivered their Croonian lecture in 1920. He was the president of the British Association in 1913–1914.[23] He founded The Genetics Society in 1919, one of the first learned societies dedicated to Genetics.[24] The John Innes Centre holds a Bateson Lecture in his honour at the annual John Innes Symposium.[25]

He was an atheist.[26][27]


• Materials for the Study of Variation: Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species (1894)
• The Methods and Scope of Genetics: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered 23 October 1908 (1908)
• Mendel's Principles of Heredity (1913)
• Problems of Genetics (1913)
• Mendel's Principles of Heredity - A Defence, with a Translation of Mendel's Original Papers on Hybridisation Cambridge University Press

See also

• Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller model
• Lucien Cuénot


1. "William Bateson". Encyclopædia Britannica.
2. "Bateson, William (BT879)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
3. Johns Hopkins University Circular Nov.(1883) vol III. no 4.
4. Scientific papers of William Bateson. RC Punnett (Ed) : Cambridge University Press 1928 Vol 1
5. Some cases of variation in secondary sexual characters statistically examined, Proc Zool Soc 1892
6. Materials for the study of variation, treated with especial regard to discontinuity in the origin of species William Bateson 1861–1926. London : Macmillan 1894 xv, 598 p
7. Genetic Science Learning Center. "Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns". Learn Genetics. University of Utah. Archived from the original on 15 March 2019. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
8. Magner, Lois N. (2002). History of the Life Sciences (3, revised ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. p. 380. ISBN 978-0-2039-1100-6.
9. Gros, Franc̜ois (1992). The Gene Civilization (English Language ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-07-024963-9.
10. Jump up to:a b Moore, Randy (2001). "The "Rediscovery" of Mendel's Work" (PDF). Bioscene. 27 (2): 13–24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 February 2016.
11. Progress in the study of variation I. Science Progress I, 1897
12. Bateson, W. (1900) "Hybridisation and Cross-Breeding as a Method of Scientific Investigation" J. RHS (1900) 24: 59 – 66, a report of a lecture given at the RHS Hybrid Conference in 1899. Full text:
13. Gillham, Nicholas W. (2001). Evolution by Jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the Mechanism of Evolutionary Change. Genetics 159: 1383–1392.
14. Richmond, Marsha L. (2006). "The 'Domestication' of Heredity: The Familial Organization of Geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895–1910". Journal of the History of Biology. Springer. 39 (3): 565–605. doi:10.1007/s10739-004-5431-7. JSTOR 4332033.
15. "Bateson Family Papers". American Philosophical Society. Retrieved 4 October2013.
16. Richmond, M. L. (March 2001). "Women in the early history of genetics. William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910". Isis. 92 (1): 69. doi:10.1086/385040. PMID 11441497.
17. "Naming 'genetics' | Lines of thought". Retrieved 28 September 2017.
18. Gordon M. Shepherd (2010). "Mendel's proposal that heredity is the outcome of 'independent factors' led William Bateson in England in 1906 to suggest the term 'genetics' as a specific biological term for the study of the rules of heredity. Following Bateson, Wilhelm Johannsen in Denmark in 1909 proposed the term 'gene' for the 'independent factors', as well as 'genotype' for the combination of genes in an individual and 'phenotype'" (Creating modern neuroscience Archived 22 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine, p. 17).
19. Craft, Jude (2013). "Genes and genetics: the language of scientific discovery". Genes and genetics. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 14 January 2016.
20. A. D. H. (January 1928). "Obituary. Mr. W. C. F. Newton". Nature. 121 (3036): 27–28. doi:10.1038/121027b0.
21. "A Brief History of the John Innes Centre". Retrieved 21 October 2015.
22. "Library and Archive Catalogue". Royal Society. Retrieved 11 December2010.[permanent dead link]
23. "Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science". Retrieved 21 October 2015.
24. "Genetics Society Website > About > About the Society". Retrieved 21 October 2015.
25. "The Bateson Lecture". John Innes Centre. Archived from the original on 9 November 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2013.
26. "William Bateson was a very militant atheist and a very bitter man, I fancy. Knowing that I was interested in biology, they invited me when I was still a school girl to go down and see the experimental garden. I remarked to him what I thought then, and still think, that doing research must be the most wonderful thing in the world and he snapped at me that it wasn't wonderful at all, it was tedious, disheartening, annoying and anyhow you didn't need an experimental garden to do research." Interview with Dr. Cecilia Gaposchkin by Owen Gingerich, 5 March 1968.
27. Charlton, Noel G. (25 March 2010). Understanding Gregory Bateson: Mind, Beauty, and the Sacred Earth. ISBN 9780791478271.


• Schwartz JH (February 2007). "Recognizing William Bateson's contributions". Science. 315 (5815): 1077. doi:10.1126/science.315.5815.1077b. PMID 17322045.
• Harper PS (October 2005). "William Bateson, human genetics and medicine". Human Genetics. 118 (1): 141–51. doi:10.1007/s00439-005-0010-3. PMID 16133188.
• Hall BK (January 2005). "Betrayed by Balanoglossus: William Bateson's rejection of evolutionary embryology as the basis for understanding evolution". Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution. 304 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1002/jez.b.21030. PMID 15668943.
• Bateson P (August 2002). "William Bateson: a biologist ahead of his time" (PDF). Journal of Genetics. 81 (2): 49–58. doi:10.1007/BF02715900. PMID 12532036.
• Gillham NW (December 2001). "Evolution by jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the mechanism of evolutionary change". Genetics. 159 (4): 1383–92. PMC 1461897. PMID 11779782.
• Richmond ML (March 2001). "Women in the early history of genetics. William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910". Isis. 92 (1): 55–90. doi:10.1086/385040. PMID 11441497.
• Harvey RD (January 1995). "Pioneers of genetics: a comparison of the attitudes of William Bateson and Erwin Baur to eugenics". Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 49 (1): 105–17. doi:10.1098/rsnr.1995.0007. PMID 11615278.
• Olby R (October 1987). "William Bateson's introduction of Mendelism to England: a reassessment". British Journal for the History of Science. 20 (67): 399–420. doi:10.1017/S0007087400024201. PMID 11612343.
• Harvey RD (November 1985). "The William Bateson letters at the John Innes Institute". The Mendel Newsletter (25): 1–11. PMID 11620779.
• Cock AG (January 1983). "William Bateson's rejection and eventual acceptance of chromosome theory". Annals of Science. 40: 19–59. doi:10.1080/00033798300200111. PMID 11615930.
• Cock AG (1980). "William Bateson's pilgrimages to Brno. Cesty Williama Batesona do Brna". Folia Mendeliana. 65 (15): 243–50. PMID 11615869.
• Cock AG (June 1977). "The William Bateson papers". The Mendel Newsletter. 14: 1–4. PMID 11609980.
• Darden L (1977). "William Bateson and the promise of Mendelism". Journal of the History of Biology. 10 (1): 87–106. doi:10.1007/BF00126096. PMID 11615639.
• Cock AG (1973). "William Bateson, Mendelism and biometry". Journal of the History of Biology. 6: 1–36. doi:10.1007/BF00137297. PMID 11609732.

External links

• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries

By William Bateson

• Online books
• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries
• Works by William Bateson at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about William Bateson at Internet Archive
• Works by William Bateson at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• William Bateson 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation, treated with special regard to discontinuity in the Origin of Species
• William Bateson 1902. Mendel's Principles of Heredity, a defence[permanent dead link]
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). "Bateson, William" . Encyclopædia Britannica (12th ed.). London & New York.
• Punnett and Bateson
• Opposition to Bateson – Documents by, or about, Bateson are on Donald Forsdyke's webpages
• Bateson-Punnett Notebooks digitised in Cambridge Digital Library
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:44 pm

Erwin Baur
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19




Erwin Baur (16 April 1875, Ichenheim, Grand Duchy of Baden – 2 December 1933) was a German geneticist and botanist. Baur worked primarily on plant genetics. He was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Breeding Research (since 1938 Erwin Baur-Institute). Baur is considered to be the father of plant virology. He discovered the inheritance of plastids.[1]

In 1908 Baur demonstrated a lethal gene in the Antirrhinum plant. In 1909 working on the chloroplast genes in Pelargonium (geraniums) he showed that they violated four of Mendel's five laws. Baur stated that

1. plastids are carriers of hereditary factors which are able to mutate.

2. in variegated plants, random sorting out of plastids is taking place.

3. the genetic results indicate a biparental inheritance of plastids by egg cells and sperm cells in pelargonium.

Since the 1930s and the work of Otto Renner, plastid inheritance became a widely accepted genetic theory.

In 1921 and 1932 Baur co-authored with Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer two volumes that became the book Human Heredity, which was a major influence on the racial theories of Adolf Hitler. The work served a chief inspiration for biological support in Hitler's "Mein Kampf".[2]


1. Hagemann, R. 2000. Erwin Baur or Carl Correns: who really created the theory of plastid inheritance? Archived 2005-03-16 at the Wayback Machine. Journal of Heredity 91:435-440.
2. "Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history", Jonathan M. Marks. Transaction Publishers, 1995. p. 88. ISBN 0-202-02033-9, ISBN 978-0-202-02033-4.

External links

Short Biography, bibliography, and links on digitized sources in the Virtual Laboratory of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science

Erwin Baur

[Born] Ichenheim, Germany, 16.04.1875

[Died] Berlin, Germany, 02.12.1933

Degrees: Dr. med., University of Kiel, 1900; Dr. phil., University of Freiburg i. Br., 1903

Career: 1894 studies of medicine at the universities of Heidelberg, Freiburg im Breisgau and Strassburg; 1897 medical studies at the University of Kiel and at the same time attendance at lectures in botany and biology; 1900 state examination and M.D. from the University of Kiel; for some time work as ship's doctor and as assistant physician at psychiatric clinics in Kiel and Emmendingen; abandoned medicine and psychiatry for doctoral work in botany at Freiburg; 1903 doctorate under Oltmanns with a study of the developmental aspects of fructification in lichens; 1903 first assistant to Simon Schwendener at the University Botanical Institute, Berlin; 1904 qualification as Privatdozent with a work on the fungal bacteria; 1911 professorship in botany at the Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule, Berlin; 1914 opening of the Institute for Genetic Research at Berlin-Friedrichshagen; 1923 new Institute for Genetic Research opened at Berlin-Dahlem; 1928 director of the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Plant Breeding and Genetic Research at Müncheberg; 1931 lectures on evolution, applied genetics and eugenics in London, Sweden and South America; editor of Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammung- und Vererbungslehre (from 1908 onward) and founder of Der Züchter (1929); co-founder of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Vererbungswissenschaft with C. Correns and R. Goldschmidt; president of the Fifth International Congress of Genetics (1927).

Selected works:

Baur, Erwin. 1911. Einführung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre. Berlin
Baur, Erwin, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz. 1921. Grundlagen der menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene. München
Baur, Erwin. 1921. Die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Pflanzenzüchtung: Ein Lehrbuch für Landwirte, Gärtner und Forstleute. Berlin
Baur, Erwin. 1910. Vererbungs- und Bastardisierungsversuche mit Antirrhinum. Zeitschrift für Induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 3: 34-98
search the library or the technology database

Sources: DSB ; Schmidt ; Image: Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin: Collection of Portraits - HBSB ZM B I/502

-- Erwin Baur, by Virtual Laboratory of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:56 pm

Fritz Lenz
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19




Fritz A Lenz (9 March 1887 in Pflugrade, Pomerania – 6 July 1976 in Göttingen, Lower Saxony) was a German geneticist, member of the Nazi Party,[1] and influential specialist in eugenics in Nazi Germany.


The pupil of Alfred Ploetz, Lenz took over the publication of the magazine "Archives for Racial and Social Biology" from 1913 to 1933 and received in 1923 the first chair in eugenics in Munich. In 1933 he came to Berlin where he established the first specific department devoted to eugenics, at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics.

Lenz specialised in the field of the transmission of hereditary human diseases and "racial health". The results of his research were published in 1921 and 1932 in collaboration with Erwin Baur and Eugen Fischer in two volumes that were later combined under the title Human Heredity Theory and Racial Hygiene (1936).

This work and his theory of "race as a value principle" placed Lenz and his two colleagues in the position of Germany's leading racial theorists. Their ideas provided scientific justification for Nazi ideology, in particular its emphasis on the superiority of the "Nordic race" and the desirability of eliminating allegedly inferior strains of humanity - or "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben). Lenz was a member of the "Committee of Experts for Population and Racial Policy". He joined the Nazi party in 1937 while serving as the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology.[1]

After World War II, Lenz continued to work as a Professor of genetics at the University of Goettingen. When questioned Lenz said that the Holocaust would undermine the study of human genetics and racial theory. He continued to believe that eugenic theories of racial differences had been scientifically proven.


For Lenz, human genetics established that the connection between racial identity and human nature was actually physical in character. This extended to political affiliations. Lenz even claimed that the revolutionary agitation in Germany after 1918 was caused by inferior racial elements, warning that the nation's racial superiority was threatened. He stated that "The German nation is the last refuge of the Nordic race...before us lies the greatest task of world history".[2] For Lenz, this validated the racialised politics of the Nazis.

He justified the Nuremberg laws of 1935 in this way:

As important as the external features for their evaluation is the lineage of individuals, a blond Jew is also a Jew. Yes, there are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race, but who nevertheless display Jewish mental tendencies. The legislation of the National Socialist state therefore properly defines a Jew not by external race characteristics, but by descent.[3]

Likewise, Lenz took the view that Slavs were inferior to Nordic peoples, and that they threatened to "overrun the superior Volk (People)." In 1940, Lenz advised the SS that "The resettlement of the Eastern zone is...the most consequential task of racial policy. It will determine the racial character of the population living there for centuries to come."


1. "Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history", Jonathan M. Marks. Transaction Publishers, 1995. p. 88. ISBN 0-202-02033-9, ISBN 978-0-202-02033-4.
2. Geoffrey G. Field, "Nordic Racism", Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977, p. 526
3. Fritz Lenz, Über Wege und Irrwege rassenkundlicher Untersuchungen, in: Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie Bd. 39, 3/1941, S. 397

See also

• Racial policy of Nazi Germany
• Eugenics
• Ex-Nazis
• Alfred Ploetz
• Ernst Rudin
• Eugen Fischer
• racial hygiene
• Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:04 pm

Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19



Former Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Racial Hygiene, at the Free University of Berlin

Eugen Fischer during a ceremony at the University of Berlin 1934

The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927 in Berlin, Germany. When confronted with financial demands, the Rockefeller Foundation supported both the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics.[1] The Rockefeller Foundation partially funded the actual building of the Institute and helped keep the Institute afloat during the Great Depression.


Josef Mengele in 1956

In its early years, and during the Nazi era, it was strongly associated with theories of Nazi eugenics and racial hygiene advocated by its leading theorists Fritz Lenz, (first director) Eugen Fischer, and by its second director Otmar von Verschuer.

In the years of 1937–1938, Fischer and his colleagues analysed 600 children in Nazi Germany descending from French-African soldiers who occupied western areas of Germany after First World War; the children were subsequently subjected to sterilization afterwards.[2]

Fischer didn't officially join the Nazi Party until 1940.[3] However, he was influential with National Socialists early on. Adolf Hitler read his two-volume work, Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene (first published in 1921 and co-written by Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz) while incarcerated in 1923 and used its ideas in Mein Kampf.[4] He also authored The Rehoboth Bastards and the Problem of Miscegenation among Humans (1913) (German: Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen), a field study which provided context for later racial debates, influenced German colonial legislation and provided scientific support for the Nuremberg laws.[5]

Under the Nazi regime, Fischer developed the physiological specifications used to determine racial origins and developed the so-called Fischer–Saller scale. He and his team experimented on Romani people and African-Germans, especially those from Namibia, taking blood and measuring skulls to find scientific validation for his theories.

During World War II, the Institute regularly received human body parts, including eyes and skulls, from Nazi party member Karin Magnussen who studied eye colors, and Josef Mengele (at Auschwitz concentration camp) to use in studies intended to prove Nazi racial theories and justify race-related social policies. After the German capitulation in May 1945, most of the thousands of files and lab material of the Institute were moved to an unknown location or destroyed, and never obtained by the Allies to use as evidence in war crimes trials and to prove or dis-prove the Nazi racial ideology which had motivated mass genocide in Europe. Most of the staff of the Institute were able to escape trial.

Efforts to return the Namibian skulls taken by Fischer were started with an investigation by the University of Freiburg in 2011 and completed with the return of the skulls in March 2014.[6][7][8]

See also

• Max Planck Society Archive
• Shark Island, German South West Africa
• Herero and Namaqua Genocide


1. Black, Edwin (9 November 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
2. Bioethics: an anthology Helga Kuhse,Peter Singer page 232 Wiley-Blackwell 2006
3. "Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history", Jonathan M. Marks. Transaction Publishers, 1995. p. 88. ISBN 0202020339, 9780202020334.
4. A. E. Samaan (2013). From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848. A.E. Samaan. p. 539. ISBN 1626600007.
5. Baumel, Judith Tydor (2001). The Holocaust Encyclopedia. Yale University Press. p. 420. ISBN 0-300-08432-3.
6. "Repatriation of Skulls from Namibia University of Freiburg hands over human remains in ceremony". 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-04-03.
7. Namibia Press Agency (7 March 2014). "NAMPA: WHK skulls repatriated to Namibia 07 March 2014" – via YouTube.
8. "Germany to send back 35 skulls". 28 February 2014.

Further reading

• Papanayotou, Vivi. "Skeletons in the Closet of German Science". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
• Schmuhl, Hans-Walter (2003). The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, 1927-1945. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 259. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-6599-6.
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:00 pm

Kaiser Wilhelm Society
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19



Former Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut for Chemistry in Berlin, the place at which nuclear fission was detected

Former Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut for Biology, Berlin

The Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science (German Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften) was a German scientific institution established in the German Empire in 1911. Its functions were taken over by the Max Planck Society. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society was an umbrella organisation for many institutes, testing stations, and research units created under its authority.


Opening of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut in Berlin-Dahlem, 1913. From right: Adolf von Harnack, Friedrich von Ilberg, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Carl Neuberg, August von Trott zu Solz

The Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG) was founded in 1911 in order to promote the natural sciences in Germany, by founding and maintaining research institutions formally independent from the state and its administrations. The institutions were to be under the guidance of prominent directors, which included luminaries such as Walther Bothe, Peter Debye, Albert Einstein, Fritz Haber and Otto Hahn; a board of trustees also provided guidance.

Funding was ultimately obtained from sources internal and external to Germany. Internally, money was raised from individuals, industry and the government, as well as through the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft (Emergency Association of German Science).

External to Germany, the Rockefeller Foundation granted students worldwide one-year study stipends, for whichever institute they chose, some studied in Germany.[1][2][3] In contrast to the German universities with their formal independence from state administrations, the institutions of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft had no obligation to teach students.

The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and its research facilities were involved in weapons research, experimentation and production in both the First World War and the Second World War. During the World War I, the group, and in particular Fritz Haber, was responsible for introducing the use of poison gas as a weapon.[4] This was in direct violation of established international law. During World War II, some of the weapons and medical research performed by the KWI was connected to fatal experimentation on living test subjects in concentration camps.[5] In fact, members of the KWI Anthropology Department, particularly Otmar von Verschuer received preserved Jewish bodies for study and display from Auschwitz. [6] These were provided by Dr. Josef Mengele.[7] As the American forces closed in on the relocated KWI, the organization's president, Albert Vögler, an industrialist and early Nazi Party backer, committed suicide, knowing he would be held accountable for the group's crimes and complicity in war crimes.[8]


By the end of the Second World War, the KWG and its institutes had lost their central location in Berlin and were operating in other locations. The KWG was operating out of its Aerodynamics Testing Station in Göttingen. Albert Vögler, the president of the KWG, committed suicide on 14 April 1945. Thereupon, Ernst Telschow assumed the duties until Max Planck could be brought from Magdeburg to Göttingen, which was in the British zone of the Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. Planck assumed the duties on 16 May until a president could be elected. Otto Hahn was selected by directors to be president, but there were a number of difficulties to be overcome. Hahn, being related to nuclear research had been captured by the allied forces of Operation Alsos, and he was still interned at Farm Hall in Britain, under Operation Epsilon. At first, Hahn was reluctant to accept the post, but others prevailed upon him to accept it. Hahn took over the presidency three months after being released and returned to Germany. However, the Office of Military Government, United States (OMGUS) passed a resolution to dissolve the KWG on 11 July 1946.

Meanwhile, members of the British occupation forces, specifically in the Research Branch of the OMGUS, saw the society in a more favourable light and tried to dissuade the Americans from taking such action. The physicist Howard Percy Robertson was director of the department for science in the British Zone; he had a National Research Council Fellowship in the 1920s to study at the Georg August University of Göttingen and the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Also, Colonel Bertie Blount was on the staff of the British Research Branch, and he had received his doctorate at Göttingen under Walther Borsche. Among other things, Bertie suggested to Hahn to write to Sir Henry Hallett Dale, who had been the president of the Royal Society, which he did. While in Britain, Bertie also spoke with Dale, who came up with a suggestion. Dale believed that it was only the name which conjured up a pejorative picture and suggested that the society be renamed the Max Planck Gesellschaft. On 11 September 1946, the Max Planck Gesellschaft was founded in the British Zone only. The second founding took place on 26 February 1948 for both the American and British occupation zones. The physicists Max von Laue and Walther Gerlach were also instrumental in establishing the society across the allied zones, including the French zone.[9][10]


• Adolf von Harnack (1911–1930)
• Max Planck (1930–1937, 16 May 1945-31 March 1946)
• Carl Bosch (1937–1940)
• Albert Vögler (1941–1945)
• Otto Hahn (1 April 1946 – 10 September 1946 in the British Occupation Zone)

Institutes, testing stations and units

Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes

• KWI for Animal Breeding Research, founded in Dummerstorf. Transformed into a research institute of the (East)-German Academy of Sciences.
• KWI of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, founded 1926 in Berlin-Dahlem.
• KWI for Bast Fibre Research, founded 1938 in Sorau. It was moved to Mährisch Schönberg in 1941 and to Bielefeld in 1946. After its incorporation into the Max Planck Society in 1948 and two further relocations to Westheim and Niedermarsberg in 1951 it was incorporated into the Max Planck Institute for Breeding Research and moved to Köln-Vogelsang. The Institute was closed down in 1957. Its first director was Ernst Schilling 1938-1945 and 1948-1951.
• KWI for Biology, founded 1912 in Berlin and moved to Tübingen in 1943. It was then the Max Planck Institute for Biology until 2005.
• KWI for Biochemistry, founded 1912. Nowadays, there exists the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, but there is no straight relation between the institutes.
• KWI for Biophysics, formerly the Institut für Physikalische Grundlagen der Medizin of Friedrich Dessauer was incorporated into the KWG by Boris Rajewsky in 1937. The Institute is located in Frankfurt am Main. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Biophysics.
• KWI for Brain Research, founded 1914 in Berlin by Oskar Vogt. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research.
• KWI for Cell Physiology, founded 1930 in Dahlem, Berlin by Otto Heinrich Warburg and the Rockefeller Foundation.
• KWI for Chemistry, founded 1911 in Dahlem. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, also known as the Otto Hahn Institute.
• KWI for Coal Research Institute of the KWG, founded 1912 in Mülheim. It is now the Max Planck Institute für Kohlenforschung.
• KWI for Comparative and International Private Law, founded 1926 in Berlin by Ernst Rabel.[11] It is now the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg.
• KWI for Comparative Public Law and International Law, founded 1924 in Berlin; the first director was Viktor Bruns.[12] It is now the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg.
• KWI for Experimental Therapy, founded in 1915 by August von Wasserman.
• KWI for Fiber Chemistry, founded in 1920 by Reginald Oliver Herzog, closed in 1934.
• KWI of Flow (Fluid Dynamics) Research, founded 1925. Ludwig Prandtl was the director from 1926 to 1946. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization.
• KWI for German History, founded 1917 in Berlin. It was later the Max Planck Institute for History, now transformed a Max Planck Institute for multi-ethnic societies.
• KWI for Hydrobiological Research. One of its directors was August Friedrich Thienemann.
• KWI for Iron Research, founded 1917 in Aachen and it moved to Düsseldorf in 1921. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Iron Research GmbH.
• KWI for Leather Research, founded 1921 in Dresden by Max Bergmann. It became a part of an institute that later the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried.
• KWI for Medical Research founded 1929 in Heidelberg by Ludolf von Krehl. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg.
• KWI for Metals Research, founded 1921 in Neubabelsberg. It closed in 1933 and reopened in Stuttgart in 1934. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research in Stuttgart.
• KWI for Plant Breeding Research, founded in Müncheberg in 1929 by Erwin Baur. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research located in Cologne.
• KWI for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry, founded 1911 in Dahlem, Berlin. It is now the Fritz Haber Institute of the MPG, named after Fritz Haber, who was the director 1911-1933.
• KWI for Physics, founded 1917 in Berlin. Albert Einstein was the director 1917-1933; in 1922, Max von Laue became deputy director and took over administrative duties from Einstein. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Physics; also known as the Werner Heisenberg Institute.
• KWI for Physiology of Effort (Work)/KWI for Occupational Physiology, founded 1912 in Berlin, moved to Dortmund in 1929. It is now the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology in Dortmund.
• German Research Institute for Psychiatry (a Kaiser Wilhelm institute) in Munich. It is now the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry.
• KWI for Silicate Research, founded 1926 in Berlin-Dahlem by Wilhelm Eitel.
• KWI for Textile Chemistry
• KWI Vine Breeding

Kaiser Wilhelm Society organisations

Aerodynamic Testing Station (Göttingen e. V.) of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. The testing unit Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA) was formed in 1925 along with the KWI of Flow (Fluid Dynamics) Research. In 1937, it became the testing station of the KWG.
Biological Station Lunz of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
• German Entomological Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
Hydrobiological Station of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
• Institute for Agricultural Work Studies in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
Research Unit "D" in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
• Rossitten Bird Station of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, founded 1901 in Rossitten and integrated into the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in 1921. The ornithological station was ceased at the end of the Second World War, but work continues at the ornithological station Radolfzell which is part of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology.
• Silesian Coal Research Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, in Breslau.

Institutions outside Germany

• Bibliotheca Hertziana, founded 1913 in Rome. It is now the Bibliotheca Hertziana - Max Planck Institute of Art History in Rome.
• German-Bulgarian Institute for Agricultural Science founded in 1940 in Sofia.
• German-Greek Institute for Biology in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society founded in 1940 in Athens.
• German-Italian Institute for Marine Biology at Rovigno, Italy.
• Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cultivated Plant Research founded in 1940 in Vienna, Austria.


• Institute for the Science of Agricultural Work—founded in 1940 in Breslau.
• Research Unit for Virus Research of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biochemistry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology
• Institute for Theoretical Physics

See also

• Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive



1. Macrakis, 1993, 11-28 and 273-274.
2. Hentschel, 1996, Appendix A; see the entries for the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Fluid Dynamics Research.
3. List of Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes Archived 2013-09-09 at the Wayback Machinein summary of holdings, Section I (Bestandsübersicht, I. Abteilung), on the website of the Max Planck Gesellschaft Archives (in German). Retrieved 2015-08-29.
4. "History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society". Retrieved 2019-07-28.
5. Müller-Hill, Benno (1999). "The Blood from Auschwitz and the Silence of the Scholars". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 21 (3): 331–365. JSTOR 23332180.
6. "History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society". Retrieved 2019-07-28.
7. "History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society". Retrieved 2019-07-28.
8. "History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society". Retrieved 2019-07-28.
9. Macrakis, 1993, 187-198.
10. Hentschel, 1996, Appendix A; see the entries for the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Fluid Dynamics Research.
11. Kunze, Rolf-Ulrich (2004). Ernst Rabel und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 1926-1945. Göttingen: Wallstein. p. 13.
12. Kunze (2004), p. 47-48.


• Hans-Walter Schmuhl: Grenzüberschreitungen. Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Anthropologie, Menschliche Erblehre und Eugenik 1927–1945. Reihe: Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus, 9. Wallstein, Göttingen 2005, ISBN 3-89244-799-3
• Hentschel, Klaus (ed.) (1996). Physics and National Socialism: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Basel, Boston: Birkhäuser Verlag. ISBN 0-8176-5312-0.
• Macrakis, Kristie (1993). Surviving the swastika: Scientific research in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-507010-0.

External links

• History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era - Presidential Commission of the Max Planck Gesellschaft
• KWG & MPG Presidents
• A History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research: 1929-1939, by David M. States (June 28, 2001) – compilation of articles, including several about the lives and work of Nobel laureates, on the official website of the Nobel Prize
• Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 1911-1948 (in German) – Deutsches Historisches Museum
• Max Planck Gesellschaft – English Portal
• Documents and clippings about Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi, by Wikipedia

Postby admin » Mon Oct 28, 2019 11:58 pm

Eugen Fischer
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/28/19



Eugen Fischer with photographs of indigenous African women, circa 1938.
Born 5 July 1874
Karlsruhe, Grand Duchy of Baden
Died 9 July 1967 (aged 93)
Freiburg im Breisgau, West Germany
Nationality German
Occupation Professor
Known for Nazi eugenics
Political party Nazi Party

Eugen Fischer (5 July 1874 – 9 July 1967) was a German professor of medicine, anthropology, and eugenics, and a member of the Nazi Party. He served as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, and also served as rector of the Frederick William University of Berlin.

Fischer's ideas informed the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which served to justify the Nazi Party's belief in German racial superiority.[1] Adolf Hitler read Fischer's work while he was imprisoned in 1923 and he used Fischer's eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure Aryan society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).[1]


Fischer was born in Karlsruhe, Grand Duchy of Baden, in 1874. He studied medicine, folkloristics, history, anatomy, and anthropology in Berlin, Freiburg and Munich.[2] In 1918, he joined the Anatomical Institute in Freiburg in 1918,[3] part of the University of Freiburg.[4]

In 1927, Fischer became the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (KWI-A), a role for which he'd been recommended the prior year by Erwin Baur.[5]

In 1933 Fischer signed the Loyalty Oath of German Professors to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist State.

In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed him rector of the Frederick William University of Berlin, now Humboldt University.[6] Fischer retired from the university in 1942. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer was a student of Fischer.[7][8]

After the war, he completed his memoirs, it is believed that in them he whitened his role in the genocidal program of the Third Reich. He died in 1967.

Early work


In 1906, Fischer conducted field research in German South West Africa (now Namibia). He studied the Basters, offspring of German or Boer men who had fathered children by the native women (Hottentots) in that area. His study concluded with a call to prevent a "mixed race" by the prohibition of "mixed marriage" such as those he had studied. It included unethical medical practices on the Herero and Namaqua people.[9] He argued that while the existing Mischling descendants of the mixed marriages might be useful for Germany, he recommended that they should not continue to reproduce. His recommendations were followed and by 1912 interracial marriage was prohibited throughout the German colonies.[10][11] As a precursor to his experiments on Jews in Nazi Germany, he collected bones and skulls for his studies, in part from medical experimentation on African prisoners of war in Namibia during the Herero and Namaqua Genocide.[12][13]

His ideas expressed in this work, related to maintaining the purity of races, influenced future German legislation on race, including the Nuremberg laws.[11]

In 1927, Fischer was a speaker at the World Population Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland.[14]

Nazi Germany

Eugen Fischer during a ceremony at the University of Berlin 1934

In the years of 1937–1938 Fischer and his colleagues analysed 600 children in Nazi Germany descending from French-African soldiers who occupied western areas of Germany after First World War; the children were subsequently subjected to sterilization.[15]

Fischer did not officially join the Nazi Party until 1940.[16] However, he was influential with National Socialists early on. Adolf Hitler read his two-volume work, Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene (first published in 1921 and co-written by Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz) while incarcerated in 1923 and used its ideas in Mein Kampf.[17] He also authored The Rehoboth Bastards and the Problem of Miscegenation among Humans (1913) (German: Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen), a field study which provided context for later racial debates, influenced German colonial legislation and provided scientific support for the Nuremberg laws.[18]

Under the Nazi regime, Fischer developed the physiological specifications used to determine racial origins and developed the so-called Fischer–Saller scale. He and his team experimented on Gypsies and African-Germans, taking blood and measuring skulls to find scientific validation for his theories.

Efforts to return the Namibian skulls taken by Fischer were started with an investigation by the University of Freiburg in 2011 and completed with the return of the skulls in March 2014.[19][20][21]

In 1944 Fischer intervened in an attempt to get his friend Martin Heidegger released from service in the Volkssturm militia. However, Heidegger had already been released from service when Fischer's letter arrived.[22]:332-3


To 1909

• Fischer, Eugen. 1899. "Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Nasenhöhle und des Thränennasenganges der Amphisbaeniden", Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie. 55:1, pp. 441–478.
• Fischer, Eugen. 1901. "Zur Kenntniss der Fontanella metopica und ihrer Bildungen". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.4:1. pp. 17–30.
• Fischer, Eugen, Professor an der Universität Freiburg i. Br. 1906. "Die Variationen an Radius und Ulna des Menschen". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. Vol. 9. No. 2.
• Fischer, Eugen. 1908. Der Patriziat Heinrichs III und Heinrichs IV. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Fischer's PhD thesis.

1910 to 1919

• Maass, Alfred. Durch Zentral-Sumatra. Berlin: Behr. 1910. Additional contributing authors: J.P. Kleiweg de Zwaan and E. Fischer.
• Fischer, Eugen. 1913.Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen: anthropologische und ethnographiesche Studien am Rehobother Bastardvolk in Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika, ausgeführt mit Unterstützung der Kgl. preuss, Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jena: G. Fischer.
• Gaupp, Ernst Wilhelm Theodor. Eugen Fischer (ed.) 1917. August Weismann: sein Leben und sein Werk. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.

1920 to 1929

• Schwalbe, G. and Eugen Fischer (eds.). Anthropologie. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1923.
• Fischer, E. and H.F.K. Günther. Deutsche Köpfe nordischer Rasse: 50 Abbildungen mit Geleitwarten. Munich: J.F. Lehmann. 1927.

1940 to 1949

• Fischer, Eugen and Gerhard Kittel. Das antike Weltjudentum : Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1943.[23]

1950 to 1959

• Sarkar, Sasanka Sekher; Eugen Fischer and Keith Arthur, The Aboriginal Races of India, Calcutta: Bookland. 1954.
• Fischer, Eugen. Begegnungen mit Toten: aus den Erinnerungen eines Anatomen. Freiburg: H.F. Schulz. 1959.

See also

• Karl Binding
• Racial policy of Nazi Germany
• Scientific racism
• Subsequent Nuremberg trials
• Doctors' Trial
• Anthropometry
• Fischer scale
• Fischer-Saller scale
• Shark Island Concentration Camp


1. Anderson, Ingrid L. (2016-05-26). Ethics and Suffering since the Holocaust: Making Ethics "First Philosophy" in Levinas, Wiesel and Rubenstein. Routledge. ISBN 9781317298359.
2. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft - Archive. "Fischer, Eugen". Archived from the original on 2014-08-19.
3. "Eugen Fischer".
4. Eugen Fischer (1921). "Bitte des anatomischen Instituts Freiburg i.B."
5. Schmul 2003, p. 25.
6. Lasalle, Ferdinand. "Rektoratsreden im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert – Online-Bibliographie - Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
7. Michael H. Kater (2011). "The Nazi Symbiosis: Human Genetics and Politics in the Third Reich". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 85: 515–516. doi:10.1353/bhm.2011.0067.
8. Randall Hansen; Desmond King (2013). Sterilized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth-Century. Cambridge University Press. p. 328. ISBN 978-1107434592.
9. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-12-09. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
10. Holocaust Encyclopedia, p. 420
11. Friedlander 1997, p. 11
12. ... htmMedical[permanent dead link]experimentation in Africa
13. Lusane, Clarence (2002-12-13). Hitler's black victims: The historical experiences of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi era. ISBN 9780415932950.
14. Ross, Edward Alsworth (October 1927). "Birth Control Review" (PDF). World Population Conference.
15. Bioethics: an anthology Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer page 232 Wiley-Blackwell 2006
16. "Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history", Jonathan M. Marks. Transaction Publishers, 1995. p. 88. ISBN 0202020339, 9780202020334.
17. A. E. Samaan (2013). From a Race of Masters to a Master Race: 1948 To 1848. A.E. Samaan. p. 539. ISBN 978-1626600003.
18. Holocaust Encyclopedia p. 420.
19. "Repatriation of Skulls from Namibia University of Freiburg hands over human remains in ceremony". 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-04-03.
20. Namibia Press Agency (7 March 2014). "NAMPA: WHK skulls repatriated to Namibia 07 March 2014". Retrieved 19 April 2018 – via YouTube.
21. "Germany to send back 35 skulls". 28 February 2014. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
22. Safranski, Rüdiger (1999). Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Cambridge (MAss): Harvard University Press.
23. Das Antike Weltjudentum - Forschungen zur Judenfrage. 1944.
• Baumel, Judith Tydor (2001). The Holocaust Encyclopedia. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08432-3.
• Black, Edwin (2004). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN 1-56858-321-4.
• Fangerau H.; Müller I. (2002). "Das Standardwerk der Rassenhygiene von Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer und Fritz Lenz im Urteil der Psychiatrie und Neurologie 1921-1940". Der Nervenarzt. 73 (11): 1039–1046. doi:10.1007/s00115-002-1421-1. PMID 12430045.
• Mendes-Flohr, Paul R. (1995). The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0-19-507453-X.
• Schmuhl, Hans-Walter. "The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human heredity and Eugenics, 1927-1945", Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 259, Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen, 2003
• Weindling P. (1985). "Weimar eugenics: The kaiser wilhelm institute for anthropology, human heredity and eugenics in social context". Annals of Science. 42 (3): 303–318. doi:10.1080/00033798500200221. PMID 11620696.
• Friedlander, Henry. 1997. The origins of Nazi genocide: from euthanasia to the Final Solution. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-2208-6 ISBN 0807846759.

External links

• Book Review of The Rehoboth Bastards in Nature (1913)
• 2004 Newspaper Article regarding The Rehoboth Bastards
• The Rehoboth Bastards (Photo Album)
• Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Galerie Ezakwantu
• Works by Eugen Fischer at Project Gutenberg
• Lusane, Clarence (2002-12-13). Hitler's black victims: The historical experiences of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi era. ISBN 978-0-415-93295-0.
• Detailed overview of Eugen Fischer with references
Site Admin
Posts: 31991
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests