Page:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu/968

 British territory in Sikkim was made by Tibetans, and various other slights were offered.

The Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, now decided that strong action was necessary; but the home government at first assented only to the despatch of Colonel (afterwards Sir) F. E. Younghusband with a small escort to negotiate at Khambajong, to the north of the Sikkim frontier. The mission arrived at this point on the 7th of July 1903, and here it remained till the 11th of December. No responsible Tibetan representatives appeared, and such negotiations as were carried on were abortive. On the 3rd of October, therefore, the British government authorized the occupation of the Chumbi valley, and an advance to Gyantse in Tibet and military preparations, with the difficult attendant problem of transport, were undertaken. Colonel Younghusband again accompanied the mission, and the troops were commanded by General Ronald Macdonald. The Jelep pass was crossed and the entry into Tibet effected on the 12th of December. An advance was made to Tuna, where part of the expedition wintered. A further advance being made on the 31st of March 1904, the first hostile encounter took place at Guru, when the Tibetans (the aggressors) were defeated. With some further fighting en route the expedition reached and occupied Gyantse on the 12th of April; here some of the British forces were subsequently beleaguered, and the most serious fighting took place. In fact the advance to Lhasa, resumed after the storming of the Gyantse jong (fort) on the 6th of July, met with comparatively little opposition, and the capital was reached on the 3rd of August. The Dalai Lama had fled with Dorjiev. Partly on this account, and in spite of the attempts of the Chinese authorities to bring about a settlement, there was some delay owing to the attitude of the lamas, but finally a treaty of peace was concluded on the 7th of September. The principal provisions were—the Sikkim frontier violated by the Tibetans was to be respected; marts were to be established for British trade at Gyantse, Gartok and Yatung; Tibet was to pay an indemnity of £500,000 (subsequently reduced to one-third of this sum); and no foreign power was to receive any concession in Tibet, territorial or mercantile, or to concern itself with the government of the country. The expedition left Lhasa on the 23rd of September and reached India again at the close of the following month. The treaty was slightly modified later in matters of detail, while the adhesion of China to the treaty was secured by an agreement of the 27th of April 1906.

The Anglo-Russian convention of 1907 determined the following conditions with respect to Tibet—the recognition of the suzerain rights of China and the territorial and administrative integrity of the country; that no official representative at Lhasa should be appointed either by England or by Russia, and that no concessions for railways, mines, &c., should be sought by either power. An annex to the convention provided that, except by arrangement between England and Russia, no scientific expedition should be allowed to enter the country for three years.

In January 1908 the final instalment of the Tibetan indemnity was paid to Great Britain, and the Chumbi valley was evacuated. The Dalai Lama was now summoned to Peking, where he obtained the imperial authority to resume his administration in place of the provisional governors appointed as a result of the British mission. He retained in office the high officials then appointed, and pardoned all Tibetans who had assisted the mission. But in 1909 Chinese troops were sent to operate on the Sze-ch‛uen frontier against certain insurgent lamas, whom they handled severely. When the Dalai Lama attempted to give orders that they should cease, the Chinese amban in Lhasa disputed his authority, and summoned the Chinese troops to enter the city. They did so, and the Dalai Lama fled to India in February 1910, staying at Darjeeling. Chinese troops followed him to the frontier, and he was deposed by imperial decree. The British government, in view of the apparent intention of China to establish effective suzerainty in Tibet, drew the attention of the government at Peking to the necessity of strictly observing its treaty obligations, and especially pointing out that the integrity

of the frontier states of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim must be respected. To the Dalai Lama, who had attempted to obtain British intervention at Peking, it was made clear that he personally had no claim to this, as the British government could only recognize the de facto government in Tibet.

.—Besides the records of the earlier explorers, the following works may be consulted: Clements Markham, Tibet (Bogle and Manning, London, 1879); W. W. Rockhill, The Land of the Lamas (London, 1891); Diary of a Journey through Mongolia and Tibet (Washington 1895); Geographical Journal, vol. iii.; “Tibet from Chinese Sources,” ''Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc. (1891); Notes on the Ethnology of Tibet (Washington, 1895); Chandra Das, Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet (London, 1899); G. Bonvalot, De Paris au Tonkin à travers le Tibet inconnu (Paris, 1892); H. Bower, Geog. Journal, vol. i.; Diary of a Journey across Tibet (Calcutta, 1893); Miss A. R. Taylor, National Review (September 1893); Geog. Journal, vol. iii.; Dutrueil de Rhins and F. Grenard, Mission scientifique dans la haute Asie (Paris, 1897); St G. Littledale, Roy. Geog. Journal, vol. vii.; M. S. Wellby, Geog. Journal, vol. xii.; Through Unknown Tibet (London, 1898); H. H. P. Deasy, Geog. Journal (August 1900); Sven Hedin, Through Asia (London, 1898); Geog. Journal (April 1902 and April 1909); Central Asia and Tibet (London, 1903); Adventures in Tibet (London, 1904); Trans-Himalaya (London, 1909); S. C. Rijnhart, With the Tibetans in Tent and Temple (London, 1901); Delmar Morgan, Geog. Journal, vol. ii.: L. A. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism (London, 1895); “The Falls of the Tsangpo,” Geog. Journal (1894); Lhasa and its Mysteries (London, 1905); Sir R. Strachey, Geog. Journ. (Feb., March and April 1900); N. M. Prjevalsky, “Notes on Gold-washing," Proceedings of Roy. Geog. Soc.'', vol. vii.; “Journeys and Discoveries," ibid., vols. x., xi., xii., &c.; Roborovski, “Journeys and Discoveries,” ''Proceedings of Roy. Geog. Soc.'', vols. xii. and xiii.; A. von Rosthorn, “Notes on Tea Trade between China and Tibet,” ''Geog. Journ., vol. vi.; General Walker, “Four Years' Journeys by A. K.,” Proceedings of Roy. Geog. Soc. (Feb. 1885); P. K. Kozlov, “The Russian Tibet Expedition, 1899–1901,” Geog. Journ.'' (May 1902); “Through Eastern Tibet and Kam,” ibid. vol. xxxi. (1908); W. B. Hemsley, “The Flora of Tibet or High Asia,” ''Linnean Soc. Journ. (1902), vol. xxxv.; Graham Sandberg, Exploration of Tibet (Calcutta, 1904); Tibet and the Tibetans (London, 1906); F. Grenard, Tibet: the Country and its Inhabitants (London, 1904); C. G. Rawling, The Great Plateau (London, 1905); E. Candler, The Unveiling of Lhasa (London, 1905); P. Landon, Lhasa (London, 1905); W. Filchner, Das Kloster Kumbun in Tibet (Berlin, 1906); Official Reports, &c., of the British Mission; Blue-Book'' (ed. 5240) on Anglo-Tibetan relations (September 1904–May 1910) (London, 1910).

 TIBETO-BURMAN LANGUAGES. The Tibeto-Burman family comprises a long series of dialects spoken from Tibet in the north to Burma in the south, and from the Ladákh wazárat of Kashmir in the west to the Chinese provinces of Sze-ch‛uen and Yunnan in the east. In the first place we have the various Tibetan dialects, spoken all over Tibet and in the neighbouring districts of India and China. Another series of dialects, the Himalayan group, is spoken in the southern Himalayas, from Lahul in the west to Bhutan in the east. Some of these dialects approach Tibetan in structure and grammatical principles, while others have struck out newlines of development, probably under the influence of the dialects spoken by an older population. East of Bhutan, to the north of the Assam valley, we find a third small group, the North Assam group, which consists of three dialects. A fourth group, the Bodo group, can be followed in a series of dialects from Bhutan in the north to the Tippeera state in the south. They have at one time extended over most of Assam west of Manipur and the Nāgā hills, and even far into Bengal proper. To the west of the Bodos, in and in the neighbourhood of the Nāgā hills we find a fifth group, the so-called Nāgā group. It comprises dialects of very different kinds. Some of them approach Tibetan and the dialect of the North Assam group. Others lead over to the Bodo languages, and others again connect the Nāgā dialects with their Tibeto-Burman neighbours to the south and east. To the south of the Nāgā hills, in the long chain of hills extending southwards under various names such as the Lushai hills, the Chin hills and the Arakan Yoma, we find a sixth group, the Kuki-Chin dialects. The old Meitei language of Manipur lies midway between this group and the easternmost branch of the Tibeto-Burman family, the Kachin group. The Kachins inhabit the tract of country to the east of Assam and to the north of Upper Burma, including the headwaters of the