While the negotiations with Russia were proceeding the Home Government would come to no final decision as to the action to be taken. The question at issue, they informed the Indian Government^[21] in February, was no longer one of details as to trade and boundaries—though on these it was necessary that an agreement should be arrived at—but the whole question of the future political relations of India and Tibet. They agreed with the Indian Government that, having regard to the geographical position of Tibet on the frontiers of India, and its relations with Nepal, it was “indispensable that British influence should be recognized at Lhasa in such a manner as to render it impossible for any other Power to exercise a pressure on the Tibetan Government inconsistent with the interests of British India.” They admitted, also, the force of the contention that the interest shown by the Russian Government in the action of the Government of India on the Tibetan frontier demonstrated the urgency of placing our relations with Tibet on a secure basis. They recognized that Nepal might be rightly sensitive as to any alteration in the political position of Tibet which would be likely to disturb the relations at present existing between the two countries, and that the establishment of a powerful foreign influence in Tibet would disturb those relations, and might even, by exposing Nepal to a pressure which it would be difficult to resist, affect those which then existed on so cordial a basis between India and Nepal. They regretted the necessity for abandoning the passive attitude that had hitherto sufficed in the regulation of affairs on the frontier, and were compelled to recognize that circumstances had recently occurred which threw on them the obligation of placing our relations with the Government of Lhasa upon a more satisfactory footing. And they acknowledged that the proposal to send an armed mission to enter Lhasa, by force if necessary, and establish there a Resident, might, if the issue were simply one between India and Tibet, be justified as a legitimate reply to the action of the Tibetan Government in returning the letters which on three occasions the Viceroy had addressed to them, and in disregarding the Convention with China of 1890. But they stated that they could not regard the question as one concerning India and Tibet alone. The position of China in its relations to the Powers of Europe had been so modified in recent years that it was necessary to take into account those altered conditions in deciding on action affecting what still had to be regarded as a province of China. It was true that we had no desire either to declare a protectorate or permanently to occupy any portion of the country. But measures of that kind might become inevitable if we were once to find ourselves committed to armed intervention.

For the above reasons, the Home Government thought it necessary, before sanctioning a course which might be regarded as an attack on the integrity of the Chinese Empire, to be sure that such action could be justified by the previous action of Tibet, and they had, accordingly, come to the conclusion that it would be premature to adopt measures so likely to precipitate a crisis in the affairs of Tibet as those proposed by the Government of India. They would await, therefore, the result of their reference to the Russian Government, and after those explanations had been received they would be in a better position to decide on the scope to be given to the negotiations with China, and on the steps to be taken to protect India against any danger from the establishment of foreign influence in Tibet.

When the Russian assurances were at length received, the purport of the conversation Lord Lansdowne had held with the Russian Ambassador was at once communicated by telegram to the Viceroy, and on April 14 the Secretary of State, presuming that it would be necessary to include in the scope of the negotiations with China and Tibet the entire question of our future relations with Tibet, commercial and otherwise, asked the Viceroy for his views as to the form which these negotiations should now take, with special reference to the means to be adopted to insure that the conditions that might be arrived at would be observed by Tibet.

The Viceroy on April 16 replied that he had recently received from the delegate deputed by the Chinese Resident an intimation that if Yatung was not considered a suitable locality, they were willing to negotiate at any place acceptable to us. And he proposed, accordingly, to invite the Chinese Resident to depute delegates to meet our representative at Khamba Jong, which was the nearest inhabited place on the Tibetan side to the frontier in dispute near Giagong. The Viceroy proposed that our representative, with an escort of 200 men, should proceed to that place, while reinforcements were held in reserve in Sikkim, and that, should the Chinese and Tibetan representatives fail to appear, or should the former come without the latter, our representative should move forward to Shigatse or Gyantse, in order that the arrival of the deputations from Lhasa might be accelerated.

The Secretary of State telegraphed on April 29 that there was no objection to the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian representatives meeting at Khamba Jong or to the military arrangements recommended; but His Majesty’s Government considered that without previous reference to them the Mission should not advance beyond that place, as in existing conditions, even in the event of the failure of the Chinese and Tibetan parties, any sudden advance to Lhasa was not, in their opinion, justified.

In regard to the subject-matter of the forthcoming negotiations, the Viceroy telegraphed on May 7 that, having regard to the stultification of existing treaty provisions, and to the unsuitability of either Yatung, Phari, or any other place in the Chumbi Valley, for a trade-mart, in which business could be transacted directly between British and Tibetan merchants, without incurring the monopoly of local traders, it was necessary to insist upon opening a new trade-mart and upon having a British agent at Gyantse. The Viceroy thought that having a British representative at Lhasa, which would be the best possible security for the future observance of the conditions, would be far preferable; but assuming the unwillingness of His Majesty’s Government to press this claim, the proposal for an agent at Gyantse was a suitable alternative. In any case, the fullest facilities should be given to the British representative for direct communication with the Tibetan Government, and if he met with obstruction, it would be necessary to resort to the alternative of moving him forward to Lhasa. Furthermore, it would be necessary to secure for British Indian subjects the same freedom for trade and travel in Tibet as was enjoyed by Kashmiris and Nepalese, and to insist that all British subjects duly authorized by the Government of India should be allowed to proceed by recognized routes to Gyantse, beyond which a pass from the Tibetan Government would be required.

As Commissioner, the Viceroy proposed to appoint Major Younghusband, Resident at Indore. He could confidently rely on his judgment and discretion, and he had great Asiatic experience. With him he would associate as Joint Commissioner Mr. White, Political Officer in Sikkim.

The Secretary of State hesitated to accept at once the proposal regarding Gyantse, and wished before coming to any decision to be informed whether the Viceroy could propose any alternative in place of the extreme course of advancing by force into Tibet; and the Viceroy said the only alternatives were (a) the costly and ineffectual measure of blocking all trade-routes and excluding Tibetans from British India, and (b) an occupation of the Chumbi Valley.

The final decision of the Home Government on the whole matter was telegraphed to the Viceroy on May 28. They approved a procedure by which both the Chinese and Tibetan Governments would be bound by the action of their representatives, but they wished that the negotiations should be confined to questions concerning trade relations, the frontier, and grazing rights, and that no proposal should be made for the establishment of a Political Agent at Gyantse or Lhasa, as such a political outpost might entail difficulties and responsibilities incommensurate with any benefits which would be gained by it. They had recently received assurances that Russia had no intention of developing political interests in Tibet, and they were unwilling to be committed by threats to any definite course of compulsion to be undertaken in future.

While the Home Government and the Indian Government were thus deliberating as to the final action which should be taken, communications with the Chinese were being exchanged. The Chinese Government had, in December, informed our Minister at Peking that “the Throne, attaching deep importance to international relations, and regarding the Tibetan question of great importance, had specially appointed Yu Tai to be Imperial Resident in Tibet, with orders to proceed with all speed, and negotiate with Mr. White in an amicable spirit.” This newly-appointed Resident called on the British Minister on January 5, and informed him that he had hoped to be able to travel to his new post by way of India, but that, in order to avoid arousing the suspicion of the Tibetans, it had been decided that he should travel by the Yangtse River and Szechuan, and would not be able to reach Lhasa much before July. He did not, in fact, reach it till six months later still, till thirteen critical months had elapsed since the Chinese Government had told us that he was to proceed to Lhasa with all possible speed.

Mr. Townley, the British ChargÉ d’Affaires at Peking, on May 12, informed the Chinese Government that the Government of India would invite the Resident at Lhasa to send Chinese delegates to meet the representatives of the British Government at Khamba Jong, for the settlement of pending questions, and would inform the Resident that the Chinese delegates should be accompanied by a duly accredited Tibetan representative. The Chinese Government were told that we attached great importance to this latter point, for the Tibetans had more than once intimated to the British authorities that they did not consider themselves bound to observe the provisions of the treaties previously made between the British and Chinese representatives, because no representative of the Dalai Lama had taken part in the negotiations.

The Chinese Government, on receipt of this, telegraphed to the Resident at Lhasa, asking him again to admonish the Dalai Lama, and to persuade him not to fail to send, with speed, a Tibetan official to be associated with the deputy Ho in his discussion with Mr. White. In reply, the Chinese Government received, on July 18, a telegram from the Resident, saying that he had at once communicated these instructions to the Dalai Lama, “directing him to send a Tibetan [lit., barbarian] official of fairly high standing and despatch him to the frontier, provided with credentials as a negotiator, in order to concert with the Prefect Ho and his colleagues, to await British officials, and effect a harmonious and sincere settlement.”

The Resident at Lhasa had also at this time submitted to the Throne a memorial, which furnishes exceedingly instructive reading. He said he had summoned the Tibetan Councillors to his office, and admonished them in person to the effect that the English intended to bring troops to Tibet, and that it was difficult to fathom their objects. All this, he said, was the result of their obstructing last year a deputy with his retinue, so that a favourable opportunity was lost. If the English did make this long march, it would, of course, be the duty of him, the Imperial Resident, to proceed in person to the frontier and find some way of persuading them to stop. But the Tibetans, on their side, must not show their previous obstinacy; and if the English did not stop, and insisted on entering Tibet, they must on no account repel them with arms, but must discuss matters with them on the basis of reason. Thus he hoped a rupture might be avoided, and things brought back to a satisfactory conclusion. But if, as before, the Councillors allowed themselves to be guided by the three great monasteries, and hostilities once began, then the horrors of war would be more than he could bear to think of, and even the mediation of him, the Imperial Resident, would be of no avail.

Such, said the Resident, were the admonitions which he addressed to the Tibetan Councillors, and as he did so he watched their demeanour. It was submissive certainly, but obstinacy was engrained in the character of the Tibetan barbarians, and whether, when matters should become pressing, they would consent to obey and discuss questions in a friendly spirit, it was difficult for him to tell in advance.

The laconic observation by the Emperor on this curious document, which correctly described the Tibetans, and which incidentally depicted both the contempt of the Chinese for these “barbarians” and the ineffectiveness of their control over them, was—“Seen.”

But the Resident had also written to the Viceroy, on April 6, saying that he had deputed Mr. Ho and Captain Parr for the discussion of affairs, and they were waiting at Yatung. The deputy appointed by the Viceroy might, he said, either come to Yatung, or the Chinese deputies would proceed to Sikkim, or such other place as might be decided on by the Viceroy.

To this the Viceroy replied, on June 3, 1903, that, as the Resident had already clearly recognized, it would be useless to negotiate upon matters affecting Tibet without insuring the full and adequate representation of the Dalai Lama’s Government throughout the proceedings. He was nominating as his Commissioner Colonel Younghusband, who, accompanied by Mr. White, Political Officer in Sikkim, as Joint Commissioner, would proceed to meet the Commissioners appointed by the Resident, who should, of course, be of equivalent rank, and must be attended by a Tibetan officer of the highest rank, whose authority to bind the Tibetan Government was absolute and unquestioned. On this understanding, that the Lhasa authorities would be duly and fully represented, the Viceroy was prepared to accept the Resident’s invitation that the Commissioners should meet at a very early date, and discuss, not only the exact position of the frontier under the Convention of 1890 and the mutual rights of grazing to be allowed on either side of that frontier to the people of Tibet and British territory, but also the method in which our trade relations could be improved and placed upon a basis more consonant with the usage of civilized nations and our direct and predominating interests in Tibet. And as the Resident was prepared to let his deputies meet the British representative at any place which the Viceroy might select, and as Khamba Jong, being the nearest inhabited place to the frontier in question, seemed to be the most suitable place for the meeting, he had directed Colonel Younghusband to proceed thither as soon as he conveniently could, and he trusted that the Resident would secure the attendance of the Chinese and Tibetan representatives at Khamba Jong on, or as soon as possible after, July 7.

On the same date as this letter was written I also received my own formal instructions.^[22] I was informed that a strict insistence on the boundary-line as laid down in the Convention of 1890 was, perhaps, not essential either to the Government of India or to the Sikkim Durbar, and I was directed to give my opinion on this point after inspecting the tract in question. The matter of grazing rights was not one of great importance, and after discussion with the Chinese and Tibetan delegates I was to submit my proposals as to the agreement which might be come to in this matter. The revision of the Trade Regulations and the recognition of Gyantse as a trade-mart in place of Yatung were to form the subject of discussion with the Chinese and Tibetan delegates, and the provision of guarantees for the observance of such agreements as might be concluded were to be considered a matter of the first importance. It was further considered very desirable that arrangements for free communication between the Government of India and the authorities at Lhasa should be made, and possibly also annual meetings between British and Tibetan officials for the due settlement of the trade and frontier difficulties which might occur.

In conclusion, I was warned to be very careful to abstain from using any language or taking any action which would bind the Government to any definite course hereafter without first obtaining the sanction of the Government of India.

All was now prepared for the start of a mission. In this extraordinarily complex and intricate matter the many different lines had at last been made to converge on one point. The manifold communications which had taken place for thirty years between the Bengal Government and the Government of India, between local Indian officers and local Chinese and Tibetans; the correspondence between Simla or Calcutta and London, between the India Office and the Foreign Office, between the Foreign Office and the Russian and Chinese Governments, and between the Viceroy and our Minister at Peking and the Chinese Resident at Lhasa, had all been boiled down into the definite act of the despatch of a mission to a place a bare dozen miles inside Tibet to discuss trade-relations, frontier and grazing rights.

This was not, after all, any remarkably bold or outrageously aggressive act. Such as it was, was it justified? The narrative of the causes which led to the move has been long, but, even so, it has been hard to put their true significance so that it may be appreciated by people unacquainted with Orientals. Still, there are some fairly plain facts and considerations which emerge from the long narrative, and which all who are accustomed to the conduct of affairs may be expected to understand.

The first fact is this—that it was aggression on the part of the Tibetans or their vassals which led to action on our part, and that before ever a single soldier of the British Government had crossed the frontier into Tibet Tibetan troops had crossed it to the Indian side. It was the irruption of the Bhutanese into the plains of Bengal which caused Warren Hastings to send Bogle to Tibet in 1774. It was the invasion of Sikkim by the Tibetans which made the necessity for the treaty of 1890. And it was because the Tibetans repudiated that treaty, and occupied territory inside the boundary therein laid down, that we had to take measures to see it observed.

But even supposing they were aggressive, it may be said that we ought to have treated the Tibetans with leniency, gentleness, and consideration, because of their ignorance. So we ought, and so we did. Warren Hastings conceded the request of the Tashi Lama. And though the Tibetans for a century have been free to come down to India, with no restrictions on their trade or on their travel, we for years never pressed for any ordinary rights of trade and travel for our own subjects, whether British or Indian. We allowed the Tibetans to come down where, and when, and how they liked. For a century we let the principle of heads they win, tails we lose, continue. Even when we at last stirred, and thought of sending Macaulay to Lhasa to make some less one-sided arrangement, we gave up the idea when we saw that the Tibetans raised objection. And even, again, when the Chinese asked us to make a definite treaty with them on behalf of the Tibetans, and guaranteed its observance by them, and when the Tibetans broke it, and repudiated it, and refused to meet our officers, we continued for ten years showing them forbearance and patience. It was only at last when the Tibetans, having broken the treaty, having declined to have any communication with us, yet sent Envoys to the Russians, that we took high action, and despatched a mission with an escort into Tibet. If we had shown no inclination to hold the Tibetans and Chinese to their engagements, others might well think that they also would not be held to theirs, and our authority and influence would slacken in proportion as this impression got abroad. No Government can conduct the affairs of contiguous States if it allows a treaty to be broken with impunity.

My personal view is that the local question would have been better settled, and much subsequent international complications would have been saved if, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, when it first became amply clear that our treaty was valueless; that the Tibetans repudiated and ignored it, and that the Chinese were unable to have it observed, we had at once resumed the proceedings where we had left them when we drove the Tibetans across our border, and had again advanced into the Chumbi Valley, and stopped there till we had effected a properly recognized and lasting settlement. This was the course recommended by Sir Charles Elliott, the then Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and whether that would have been a wise course or not, I do not see how anyone who has carefully considered the whole course of transactions which at last led up to the despatch of a mission to the first inhabited place across the border can deny that such a course was justified.

Whether the mission was conducted with due consideration or with unnecessary harshness, and whether any good came of it, either to ourselves or to the Tibetans or to anyone else, are matters for separate review, and to that purpose I will now address myself in the following narrative of the course of the mission.