India and Tibet / A history of the relations which have subsisted between the two countries from the time of Warren Hastings to 1910; with a particular account of the mission to Lhasa of 1904

by Sir Francis Edward Younghusband

The Ta Lama said that what was meant by the Khamba boundary was not the top of the mountains, but the wall at Giagong. He did not deny that Tibetan officials had been treated as guests at Darjiling, but he said we did not realize the great expense the Tibetan Government had incurred in transporting them to the Indian frontier. I then asked the Ta Lama what reason they had for originally starting this trouble, which after all originated in their invasion of Sikkim in 1886. Why did they send troops into the territory of a British feudatory State? We had lived for so many years without troubling one another: why did they start a trouble which had lasted up to the present time?

He replied that they considered Sikkim to be a feudatory of Tibet, and the Dalai Lama was accustomed at that time to send orders to the Sikkim chief. I said that they must surely have been aware of the treaty which had been concluded more than twenty years previous to the Tibetan invasion of Sikkim, between Sikkim and the British Government, by which the former acknowledged the suzerainty of the latter. If the Tibetans had had any objection, the proper course would have been to make representations at the time, and not twenty years after to send troops into Sikkim.

As regards the treaty we now wished to make with them, how would the negotiations be conducted? I asked, and who had the final authority in the State? The Ta Lama said that Councillors and secretaries and representatives of the National Assembly would meet me and discuss the terms. The final authority was the National Assembly, which was composed of representatives from all over Tibet, but chiefly from the three great monasteries at Lhasa. Both monks and laymen attended as well as many officials, but the Councillors (Sha-pés) were not included in it, and the Dalai Lama had no representative there.

I told the Ta Lama that this seemed rather extraordinary, for the Councillors were presumably the most able men in the State, and yet their counsels were liable to be overridden by the decision of a body of irresponsible and less capable men. “Supposing,” I said, “that the Dalai Lama and the Councillors wished to agree to the terms I was asking and the National Assembly declined to agree, whose views would be adopted?” The Ta Lama said that the Dalai Lama and the Councillors never disagreed with the National Assembly, for the decision of the latter was final. I said this made matters very difficult for me; for I negotiated with the Councillors as being the leading men in the State, and yet they could not even enter the National Assembly to report what I had said to them. The Ta Lama said the custom was for the Councillors to send one of the secretaries to present their views to the National Assembly. I asked who presided, what was the number of representatives, and whether the decision was arrived at by votes. He said no one presided, that there were about 500 representatives, and that they arrived at a decision by discussing till they were all of one mind.

I remarked that in these circumstances the negotiations promised to last a considerable time. Did he think they would be concluded in a year? He said a good deal depended upon how we proposed to set about negotiating. If we took each point separately, and had it discussed in the National Assembly till agreed to, the settlement might be made fairly quickly; but if we gave the whole treaty in a lump, and said this and nothing less must be agreed to, he did not think a settlement would ever be made.

I told the Ta Lama that it was a matter of indifference to the British Government how long the negotiations lasted, for we should expect the Tibetan Government to pay for our expenses from the date of the attack on the Mission at Gyantse till the date of the conclusion of the treaty. The Ta Lama urged that we should not be hard on the Tibetans by demanding an indemnity, for if we did we could never be friends. I answered that we would not have demanded an indemnity if they had been reasonable and had negotiated at Khamba Jong or Gyantse, but as they had chosen to fight, and had been worsted, they must take the consequences of their own actions.

The Ta Lama then dwelt upon the habit of the Tibetans to take plenty of time in making decisions. They liked to think well before taking action, and could not stand being hurried. I informed him that we also tried to think well before taking action, but we thought quickly and acted at once, so as to get on without delay from one thing to another. The lives of men were short, and we wished to get through as much as possible in the little time we were here. The Ta Lama said that their time was taken up with the study of religion, which did not admit of hurry. During this latter part of the discussion the Ta Lama and the Secretary laughed heartily, then the former, after asking leave to depart, repeated, as I was shaking hands with him, another appeal to me not to go to Lhasa.

On the same day as I was having this interview I also received from the Chinese Resident a letter, in which he expressed sympathy with me in the trials of my long journey, and said that the Tibetans were “dull, unlettered men, obstinately averse to receiving advice,” and that he was truly ashamed at the state of affairs. He said he was sending me the Chief of the Military Secretariat to acquaint me with the condition of affairs. He had impressed on the Dalai Lama that the Tibetans were on no account to treat me unceremoniously, but he warned me that these Tibetans were “cunning and insincere to a degree, and that it was necessary to obtain guarantees from them before a settlement of anything could be made.”

On July 31 all the troops, except a small garrison to guard the ferry, having crossed the river, we set out again towards Lhasa. As I was passing Chisul the Ta Lama asked me to stay for a short time to talk to him. He said he was much surprised at our advancing, as he had understood from me that we wished to make a settlement and be on friendly terms, and, if we advanced, there might be disturbances. I reminded him that I had always said we would advance, and remarked that, if there were disturbances, the responsibility would rest upon the Tibetan Government, for I had informed him many times, and had written to both the Amban and the Dalai Lama to say that we would not commence fighting, and our troops had orders not to fire unless they were fired upon.

The Ta Lama then begged me to stay till the Chamberlain returned with the reply from the Dalai Lama. His Holiness would not at all like our advancing without his permission, but if we waited for his reply, we might find that he was willing for us to advance, and he would give orders to the Tibetan soldiers to allow us to pass. I replied that we had already waited nearly a week at Chaksam Ferry, that there had been plenty of time to issue such orders if there was any intention to issue them, and that, in any case, whatever the Dalai Lama’s reply was, I should have to advance to Lhasa.