Comp. by E. A. Belov, O. I. Svyatetskaya, T. L. Shaumyan. lit-ra, 2005, 231 p.

In the recent past of Russia, there are many white spots. It would seem that the twentieth century, in which everything is documented and chronologically accurate in numerous "stories", should not have raised any questions. This book unexpectedly opens up completely unknown pages of relations between Russia and Tibet in the first fourteen years of the last century.

The complex political situation in Tibet at the turn of the 20th century was determined by many factors. The strategic geographical location of this center of Buddhism and the influence of Tibet on numerous Buddhist peoples undoubtedly attracted the interest of such world powers as Great Britain and Russia. The claims of the British colonial authorities in India to the territory of Tibet were explained by the desire to "protect this" pearl of the British crown" in every possible way from external encroachments "(p. 3). In reality, the British feared the "outcome" of Russia's active offensive policy in Central Asia, which, according to Viceroy Curzon of India, consisted in Russia's conquest of Indian territory. Central Asia was only a springboard for conducting aggressive actions against the British colony.

Russian interests in Tibet, of course, were not limited to the desire for cooperation in the field of trade and the manifestation of concern for Russian Buddhist subjects who periodically made pilgrimages to the holy sites of world Buddhism. The report of the Minister of Finance S. Y. Witte to Nicholas II of May 3, 1896 states:: "In terms of its geographical location, Tibet is of very important political importance from the point of view of Russia's interests. This significance has been particularly enhanced in recent times, in view of the persistent efforts of the British to penetrate into this country and subordinate it to their political and economic influence. Russia, in my deep conviction, should do everything in its power to counteract the establishment of English influence in Tibet" (p. 15). It is unlikely that the question of joining Tibet to Russia was raised, there was only a desire to resist the subjugation of Tibet by the British. China, which was for a long time the suzerain of Tibet, due to the crisis of the Manchu Empire, which arose as a result of China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese war of 1845-1895 and the Yihetuan uprising of 1899-1901, increasingly had less influence on the policy of the Tibetan authorities. This created favorable conditions for the penetration of Russia and England into the territory of Tibet.

Realizing the threat of British intervention in Tibet, the first Tibetan mission headed by Agvan Dorzhiev, a Buryat by birth and a Russian citizen, one of the teachers of the Dalai Lama XIII, is being sent to Russia. Undoubtedly, it was he who turned the eyes of the then young Dalai Lama in the direction of Russia. But, unfortunately, the idea of rapprochement between Tibet and Russia found understanding only in narrow circles close to Witta and Prince Ukhtomsky, and only within the framework of using Tibet as a lever to strengthen influence in the Far East. At that time, the government of Nicholas II was afraid of being drawn into" Far Eastern enterprises " that could aggravate Russia's relations with Japan and England. In 1900, Dorzhiev again went to Russia and received an audience with Nicholas II himself. The reaction to Dorzhiev's request for Tibet to be taken under Russian guardianship was neutral, and the government responded to the request.-

page 197

The government did not want to make any written commitments, but only showed a friendly attitude towards the representatives of the Dalai Lama. The third visit of Aghvan Dorzhiev took place in 1901 as part of an entire mission. This time Dorzhiev was carrying official documents - letters to the tsar, credentials to ambassadors, and gifts from the Dalai Lama. But even this time, the Russian government did not want to take any action against the British, given the apparent Anglo-Japanese rapprochement and confrontation between Russia and Japan.

The British did not fail to take advantage of this difficult political situation. The British colonial government in India was well aware of the current situation, but the speculative idea of Russian penetration into Tibet, put forward by the British themselves, and the British disagreement on the issue of passing the border line, were the motivation for the invasion of British troops into Tibet. Despite numerous attempts by Russian diplomacy to prevent such a course of events, on November 6, 1903, British troops were ordered to invade Tibet. On August 4, 1904, the British occupied Lhasa, and on September 7, the Lhasa Convention was signed. The Russian government considered this agreement as a violation of the obligations assumed by the UK, which consisted in the absence of an aggressive policy towards Tibet.

Just before the invasion of the British troops, the Dalai Lama, along with Agvan Dorzhiev and several close people, fled from Tibet to Mongolia. This has caused some concern to the Russian government. The Russian ambassador to Beijing, P. M. Lessard, after analyzing the situation, advises the government to avoid any actions in relation to the Dalai Lama and asks to take a wait-and-see attitude, the change of which directly depends on the state of affairs on the Russian-Japanese front. On February 14, 1905, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V. N. Lamsdorff, sent a note to the tsar with a proposal to facilitate the return of the "high priest" to his homeland. But the Dalai Lama expresses his desire to go to Russia. He wants to know "whether Russia will openly accept Tibet under protection from England and China before all states" (p. 25). P. M. Lessard expressed his opinion on this issue to V. N. Lamsdorff. It boiled down to the unwillingness, in connection with the mentioned situation, to take Tibet under its protection. The Russian government came to the conclusion that the Dalai Lama should be transferred to Kukonor, to the Gumbum Monastery. From this place ,the "high priest" could have directly influenced both Mongolia and Tibet, where Russia sought to strengthen its position after the end of the war with Japan.

On August 31, 1907, in St. Petersburg, Russia and Britain sign an agreement on the division of powers in Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet. Britain and China signed the "Rules of Trade in Tibet" in 1908, granting the British certain privileges. These two treaties enabled China to decide the fate of Tibet almost single-handedly in 1909-1910. Tibet was invaded by Chinese troops. The Dalai Lama fled to India. In Beijing, a decree was issued to deprive the head of Tibet of his powers. From India, the Dalai Lama once again addresses the Russian emperor. Dorzhiev again tries to draw the attention of Nicholas II to these events and asks for help. The Emperor sends a response document expressing regret over the current situation and suggesting that the Dalai Lama " pursue a policy of good agreement with the British government on Tibetan affairs... The former benevolent attitude of Russia towards Tibet remains. In religious matters, Tibet will find the most lively support in Russia" (p. 29).

What happened in China in 1911-1912? The Xinhai Revolution restored the former position of the Tibetan high priest. China's interim President Yuan Shikai has issued a decree declaring Tibet, Mongolia and East Turkestan as Chinese territory. In turn, Tibet and Mongolia, taking advantage of the weakening of Chinese influence, sign the Mongolian-Tibetan treaty, which states that Mongolia and Tibet are separated from China and form independent states. In April 1914, a tripartite Anglo-Tibetan-Chinese conference on the Tibetan question was held in Simla, trying to settle various issues affecting the interests of the three States. Article 2 of the Conference stated that " the Governments of Great Britain and China, recognizing that Tibet is under Chinese suzerainty and recognizing the autonomy of Outer Tibet, undertake to respect the territorial integrity of the country and refrain from interfering in the administration of Outer Tibet, which should remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government of Lhasa. The Chinese Government is committed not to turn Tibet into a Chinese province. The British Government undertakes not to annex Tibet or any part of it." 206). As a result, the Simla Conference did not determine the status of Tibet.

page 198

The first part of the reviewed collection traces a clear historical comparison of the chronology of events with 122 original documents of the beginning of the XX century from the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. Free deviation from the semantic context of documents is minimized. An excellent step-by-step presentation of the material, the very construction of conclusions following from the documents, give a completely objective picture of the political processes that took place at that time. However, the lack of a description of some important points of the political and cultural-historical plan makes the collection not quite complete.

The richness and significance of the historical events presented in the collection seem, in my opinion, incomplete without covering the process of the birth of a Buddhist shrine in St. Petersburg-a Buddhist temple. This shrine served not only as a Buddhist house of worship, but also, above all, as a center of Indo-Tibetan spirituality and culture on a European scale. The inspirers and initiators of the idea of building the temple were Dalai Lama XIII and Agvan Dorzhiev. Construction of the datsan began with the blessing of Tubdan Zhamtso, the Dalai Lama. On November 22, 1907, Kalmyks living in St. Petersburg filed a petition for the construction of a church. "There are up to two dozen of us Kalmyks-Buddhists living here in St. Petersburg. In addition to us, many Buryats live in St. Petersburg, and there are also Mongols, Tibetans, and others who profess the Buddhist religion. And we all don't have a temple to satisfy our religious sense. In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, hereby have the honor to humbly request Your Excellency's permission to build a Buddhist temple oratory in St. Petersburg. Moreover, we consider it necessary to report that at first we will have to adapt a specially hired apartment for this purpose. We know that the Buryats intend to initiate a similar petition" (A. I. Andreev. Buddhist shrine of Petrograd. Ulan-Ude 1992. pp. 65-66). The Dalai Lama also petitioned in a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Stolypin for permission to build a datsan in St. Petersburg.

The construction of the datsan was supervised by a specially elected construction committee, which included academicians V. V. Radlov and S. F. Oldenburg, Prince Ukhtomsky, orientalists V. P. Rudnev, famous Buddhologist F. I. Shcherbatskaya, architect G. V. Baranovsky, artists N. K. Roerich and V. P. Schneider. The project was designed by architect G. V. Baranovsky. Aghvan Dorzhiyev was responsible for the overall spiritual management of the construction. In 1913, the main temple was built, and on February 21, 1913, the first Buddhist service took place. The construction of the datsan was completed in 1915. The construction of the temple was a kind of outcome in the desire to bring together two countries, two cultures. This was primarily due to Aghvan Dorzhiev , a bright historical figure. This temple gave all the Buddhists of Russia a kind of bulwark - a bulwark of the Buddhist faith.

Permanent link to this publication: