Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:31:53.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Great Britain, China and the Status of Tibet, 1914–21

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Clive Christie
Clive Christie
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The decade preceding the First World War, with the Younghusband expedition, the Chinese forward movement in Tibet of 1909–11, and the Simla Conference of 1913–14, is naturally the period of Anglo-Tibetan relations that has been most thoroughly covered by historians. It could indeed be argued that, on the surface at least, the relationship forged between British India and Tibet by the conclusion of the Simla Conference remained unchanged and largely unchallenged until the transfer of power to an independent Indian Government. This seeming stability, however, masks a debate over Tibetan policy within the British and Indian Governments that was particularly intense during the years 1919–21, and which reflected Britain's nervousness over the political instability of north Asia as a whole during and after the First World War. Before the First World War, the ‘problem’ of Tibet was largely a parochial issue for the British Indian Government, but at the conclusion of the First World War this ‘problem’ had become an important ingredient of a much wider debate on the overall direction of post-war British policy in Asia.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 481 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rubin, Alfred P., ‘The Position of Tibet in International Law’, China Quarterly, No. 35 (07-09 1968), p. 119.Google Scholar

2 India Office Records, India Office Library, London [I.O.L.], Political and Secret Memoranda, B.448, L/P and S/18, p. 1.Google Scholar

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., p. 2.

5 Eric, Teichman, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 1–4.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., pp. 9–12.

7 Teichman, Eric, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet, pp. 18–33.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, Bailey, F. M., No Passport to Tibet (London, 1957), pp. 75–6.Google Scholar

9 Teichman, E., Travels, p. 33.Google Scholar

10 O'Connor, William F., On the Frontier and Beyond (London, 1931), p. 27;Google ScholarMehra, P., The Younghusband Expedition (London, 1968), p. 357.Google Scholar

11 For terms of the 1904 agreement, see MacMurray, J. V. A. (ed.), Treaties and Agreements with and Concerning China, 1894–1919, Vol. I (1894–1911) (New York, 1921), pp. 577–81.Google Scholar

12 O'Connor, , On the Frontier, p. 107.Google Scholar

13 Foreign Office Memorandum, 8–3–07, Political and Secret Memoranda, B. 163, L/P and S/18.

14 Mehra, P. L., ‘Tibet and Russian Intrigue’, Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, Vol. 45 (1958), pp. 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Teichman, , Travels, pp. 30–3.Google Scholar

16 Lamb, Alastair, The McMahon Line: A Study in the Relations between India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914, Vol. 2 (London, 1966), pp. 333–4.Google Scholar

17 Bailey, , No Passport to Tibet, p. 247.Google Scholar

18 Bell, Charles Alfred, Tibet Note-Book (British Museum Typescript), Vol. I, p. 16.Google Scholar

19 Bell, Charles Alfred, Tibet, Past and Present (reprint, Oxford, 1968), p. 103.Google Scholar

20 India Office Records, Report of McMahon on the Tripartite Negotiations, Enclosure 5, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.

21 Bell, , Tibet Note-Book, Vol. I, p. 53.Google Scholar

22 Tseng-li, Tieh, Tibet, Today and Yesterday (New York, 1960), p. 136. The territory of Inner Tibet was to be placed under Chinese administration but not to be absorbed within China proper.Google Scholar

23 Lamb, Alastair, The China-India Border: The Origins of the Disputed Boundaries (London, 1964), pp. 142–7.Google Scholar

24 Bell, Charles Alfred, Portrait of the Dalai Lama (London, 1946), pp. 206–7; Jordan to Grey, 31–5–14, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.Google Scholar

25 MacMurray, , (ed.), Treaties and Agreements, Vol. I, pp. 581–2.Google Scholar

26 Gupta, K., ‘The McMahon Line, 1911–1945: The British Legacy’, China Quarterly, No. 47 (1971), pp. 522–3.Google Scholar

27 Lord Crewe to Lord Hardinge, 3–10–12, Hardinge MSS, 74, f. 141; Woodward, E. L. and Rohan, Butler (eds), Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919–1939, First Series, Vol. VI (London, 1956), p. 656; India Office to Indian Government, 16–7–14, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.Google Scholar

28 Jordan to Macleay, 16–4–18, Jordan MSS, FO 350/16.

29 Memorandum by the Secretary of the Political Department, India Office, 16–5–16, 1036/711, FO 371/53388.

30 Ibid, FO 371/53388.

31 Ibid.

32 Balfour to Greene, 13–2–17, 1036/711, FO 371/53388.

33 Jordan to Balfour, 31–7–18, 162365/2567, FO 371/3181; Etherton, P. T., In the Heart of Asia (London, 1925), p. 125; British Trade Agent, Gyantse, to Indian Government, 1–2–16, 5062/13/pt. 5, L/P and S/IO/435.Google Scholar

34 Indian Government to Bell, 3–9–15, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.

35 Bell to Indian Government, 6–8–15, Bell MSS, EUR. F 80/5e. 20, I.O.L.

36 Indian Government to Bell, 3–9–15, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.

37 See Far Eastern Department minutes to I.O. to F.O., 1–9–17, 171722/2904, FO 371/2909; F.O. to I.O., 7–9–17, 3612/3260/17, L/P and S/IO/715.

38 Far Eastern Department minutes to I.O. to F.O., 3–12–17, 230146/2904, FO 371/2909; F.O. to I.O., 21–12–17, 5125/3260/17, L/P and S/IO/715.

39 Louis, M. King, China in Turmoil: Studies in Personality (London, 1927), pp. 159–63.Google Scholar

40 Jordan to Balfour, 20–4–18, 70988/2567, FO 371/3180; Jordan to Balfour, 17–11–18, 189969/2567, FO 371/3181; Political and Secret Memoranda, B. 300, L/P and S/18. The truce line gave Chamdo, Draya, Markham and Derge to the Tibetans, while Batang, Nyarong, Litang and Kanze remained in Chinese hands.

41 Teichman to Indian Government, 10–3–19, 5062/13/pt. 6, L/P and S/IO/436; Teichman to Jordan, 21–8–18, 3260/1917/pt/1, L/P and S/IO/713.

42 R. M. Macleay to A. Hirtzel, 9–9–18, 3901/3260/17, L/P and S/IO/714; Indian Government to India Office, 10–9–18, 4074/3260/1917, L/P and S/IO/714. On 13 September 1918, Jordan made his feelings about the Tibetan Government perfectly clear; he urged that the ‘Dalai Lama, who is an arch-intriguer and a most unscrupulous and dangerous person should be warned to drop his ambitious schemes of conquest on [the] Chinese border’. J. E. Shuckburgh of the Political and Secret Department of the India Office demurred at Jordan's caustic assessment of the Dalai Lama. Jordan to Balfour, 13–9–18, 4074/3260/17, L/P and S/IO/714; Minute by Shuckburgh to ibid., 17–9–18, L/P and S/IO/714.

43 Jordan to Curzon, 2–4–19, 79285/4004, FO 371/3688. China declared war against the Central Powers in August 1917.

44 Far Eastern Department minutes to I.O. to F.O., 24–1–19, 13940/4004, FO 371/3688; ‘Indian Desiderata for the Peace Settlement’, Political Department, India Office, 4–12–18, 212/3260/17, L/P and S/IO/713. In an interview with the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chen Lu, on 6 December 1918, Sir John Jordan took the opportunity to deplore in general terms ‘the persistent desire of China to sacrifice the substance for the shadow, which has led to the criminal neglect of China proper while strength and money were wasted in futile efforts to save nominal suzerainty over outlying territory such as Burma, Tonquin, Formosa, Loochow Islands, Mongolia and Tibet’; Chen Lu in reply asserted that ‘the modern Chinese attached even greater importance to what remained of these outlying islands in view of their possible use for the increasing population of China in the future. China’, he concluded, ‘like all states of the present day regarded the preservation of reserve space as vital’. Jordan to Balfour, 13–12–18, 23260/4004, FO 371/3688.Google Scholar

45 Jordan to Curzon, 31–5–19, 82499/4004, FO 371/3688.

46 Ibid.

47 See comment by Sir John Jordan at a lecture by Willough, M. E. by, ‘The Relation of Tibet to China’, Journal of the Central Asian Society, Vol. XI (1924), pt III, p. 201.Google Scholar

48 Memorandum by Shuckburgh, J. E., Political Department, India Office, 14–7–19, 305/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; Foreign Office to India Office, 30–7–19, 105308/4004, FO 371/3688.Google Scholar

49 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VI, p. 691.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., p. 693.

51 Ibid., pp. 693–5.

52 Foreign Office Memorandum, 11–7–19, 634/1/7, FO 608/210.

53 North-China Herald, 6–12–19, p. 607.Google Scholar

54 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VI, pp. 694, 715–6.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., p. 694.

56 Ibid., pp. 719–21.

57 Ibid., p. 782.

58 Jordan to Curzon, 24–11–19, 156996/124334, FO 371/3701.

59 Political Intelligence Department Memorandum, 8–4–20, CP 1113, CAB 24/104; Jordan to Curzon, 20–11–19, 155695/4004, FO 371/3689.

60 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VI, pp. 859–60;Google Scholar Jordan noted in a telegram of 20 January 1920: ‘An appeal which the President [?made to] me today regarding [the] position in Siberia as affecting Manchuria gave me an opportunity of reminding him that he could not expect much assistance from us while Tibetan situation remained unsettled.’ Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 947.

61 Jordan to Curzon, 9–12–19, 177338/4004, FO 371/3689.

62 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. VI, pp. 1011–12, 1073.Google Scholar

63 Memorandum by Eric Teichman on Tibet, 29–2–20, 4365/3260, L/P and S/IO/716.

64 Alston to Curzon, 27–4–20, 3250/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; Alston to Curzon, 14–5–20, 4004/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; Alston to Curzon, 21–5–20, 1641/22, FO 371/5316.

65 Alston to Curzon, 21–5–20, 1641/22, FO 371/5316.

66 India Office to Foreign Office, 14–5–20, 850/22, FO 371/5315.

67 Indian Government to India Office, 11–5–21, 2336/3260, L/P and S/IO/717; Bell to Indian Government, 9–5–21, Bell MSS, EUR F 80/5e. 22. I.O.L.

68 Indian Government to India Office, 11–5–21, 2336/3260, L/P and S/IO/1717.

69 Ibid.

70 Indian Government to India Office, 11–5–21, 2336/3260, L/P ond S/IO/717.

71 Jordan to Grey, 31–5–14, 464/13, L/P and S/IO/344.

72 Minute by M.Lampson 21–10–20, 2407/22, FO 371/5316.Google Scholar

73 See minute by Sir John Jordan to Aiston to Curzon, 27–4–20, 677/22, FO 371/5315.

74 See, for example, Jordan to Curzon, 27–11–19, 531/3260, L/P and S/IO/716.

75 Minute by Lord Curzon, 19–8–20, 1864/22, FO 371/5316.

76 Curzon to Lampson, 1–4–20, 222/22, FO 371/5314; see also minutes of Far Eastern Department, 222/22, FO 371/5314; Foreign Office to India Office, 9–4–20, 2847/3260, L/P and S/IO/716.

77 Indian Government to India Office, 23–4–20, 3256/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; Political and Secret Memoranda, B.344, L/P and S/IO/18.

78 Minute by Wellesley, V., 14–5–20, 834/22, FO 371/5315; as Curzon wrote in a memorandum on 27 June 1920, arming Tibet ‘might on the one hand alienate China, and on the other give a handle to Japan’. Memorandum by Lord Curzon, 27–6–20, 834/22, FO 371/5315.Google Scholar

79 Minutes of meeting held in the Foreign Office, 22–7–20, 2441/22, FO 371/5316.

80 Minute by Shuckburgh, J. E., 1–9–20, 6566/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; Clive to Curzon, 26–8–20, 1979/1979, FO 371/5344.Google Scholar

81 India Office to Indian Government, 15–10–20, 7327/3260, L/P and S/IO/716; India Office to Foreign Office, 26–10–20, 2593/22, FO 371/5317.

82 Bell, , Tibet, Past and Present, pp. 177–9.Google Scholar

83 As Miles Lampson put it on 1 December 1920: ‘… one of the indirect results of Mr. Bell's visit may be fresh overtures from the Chinese to negotiate a settlement of the Tibetan Question’. Minute by Lampson, 1–12–20, 2949/22, FO 371/5317.

84 Charles, Bell, Diary (British Museum, typescript), Vol. vii, p. 49. The Indian Government initially objected to the idea of a lengthy stay by Bell in Lhasa on the interesting grounds that ‘the longer he stays [in Lhasa] the more difficult will he find it to leave and the greater [the] danger of the Tibetan Government trying to force our hands over [a] permanent envoy at Lhasa’; the Indian Government were clearly worried about Bell's pro-Tibetan proclivities. Indian Government to India Office, 31–12–20, 23/3260, L/P and S/IO/717.Google Scholar

85 Bell to Indian Government, 21–2–21, Bell MSS, EUR F 80/5e. 21, I.O.L.; Bell to Indian Government, 19–1–21, 1344/3260, L/P and S/IO/717.

86 Bell to Indian Government, 21–2–21, Bell MSS, EUR F 80/5e. 21, I.O.L.

87 India Office to Foreign Office, 14–5–21, 1854/59, FO 371/6608.

88 See enclosure in ibid. ‘Teichman's provisional frontier’ was the truce line negotiated between local Tibetan and Chinese forces in mid-1918 with the mediation of Eric Teichman.

89 Butler, R. and Bury, J. P. T. (eds), Documents on British Foreign Policy, First series, Vol. XIV (London, 1966), p. 387.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., p. 384.

91 Minute by Curzon, 14–9–21, Alston to Curson, 8–9–21, 3380/59, FO 371/6609; Alston to Tyrrell, 8–9–21, 3385/59, FO 371/6609.

92 Foreign Office to India Office, 29–9–21, 4406/3260, L/P and S/IO/717.

93 Indian Government to India Office, 19–10–21, 4689/3260, L/P and S/IO/717; specifically, this agreement over arms included the import of 10 mountain guns, 20 machine guns, and 10,000 rifles with ammunition: ‘by 1933 all of this material had been supplied by the Government of India’. Political and Secret Memoranda, B.448, L/P and S/18.

94 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. XIV, p. 433.Google Scholar

95 Curzon to Geddes, 25–9–21, Curzon MSS, FO 800/158.

96 Documents on British Foreign Policy, Vol. XIV, p. 135.Google Scholar

97 Ibid., p. 136. Emphasis added.

98 Bell, , Tibet, Past and Present, p. 244.Google Scholar

99 Bell, , Tibet Note-Book, Vol. 2, p. 30.Google Scholar

100 Indian Government to India Office, 11–5–21, 2336/3260, L/P and S/IO/717.Google Scholar