Separation of Religion and Politics, or Unification of Religion and Politics? — The Nationalist Government’s Policy Deliberations on the Relationship between Politics and Religion in Tibet

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Republic of China began to implement a constitutional system. At that time, however, China’s border regions still contained many political systems inconsistent with this principle, the most prominent of which was the Tibetan system of unification of religion and politics. The current academic literature contains many research results on this system, but the evolution of this system after the early 20th century, especially the Nationalist Government’s attempt to transform it by upholding the principle of separation of religion and politics with the goal of political integration, represents a gap in academic research. This article attempts to provide an overall examination of the process by which the Nationalist Government, acting in accordance with the basic spirit of separation of religion and politics, sought to transform the Tibetan system of unification of religion and politics, and thereby to present the state of religion and politics in Tibetan society before the democratic reform.

I

The so-called separation of religion and politics is a general principle and political-moral foundation of secular states. Its significance lies in prohibiting the designation of any particular religion as a state religion, maintaining separate norms and spheres between the state and religion, and forbidding the “politicization of religion” and the “religionization of politics.” [1]1 The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (蒙藏委员会) was the central government agency of the Republic of China (1912-1949) responsible for administering the affairs of Mongolia, Tibet, and other frontier regions. The so-called unification of religion and politics refers to the system of unification of religion and politics. The Tibetan system of unification of religion and politics germinated during the period of the Sakya local regime in the Yuan dynasty and formally took shape as the Gelug school’s system of unification of religion and politics in 1751. The great power over religion and politics in the Tibetan region was essentially concentrated in the hands of the Dal

At the beginning of its establishment, the Republican government continued the Qing dynasty's policy of political integration under the banner of the "Five Races Under One Union." On April 22, 1912, Yuan Shikai declared that henceforth the Republican government would no longer treat Mongolia and Tibet as tributary dependencies: "Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, and other regions should naturally be planned and coordinated to achieve the unification of internal administration and to aspire to the great harmony of the nation." To this end, "the Republican government does not establish a separate ministry for frontier affairs, originally regarding Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang as equal to the interior provinces; in the future, all political affairs of these localities shall fall within the scope of internal administrative affairs," transferring the affairs formerly under the jurisdiction of the Court of Colonial Affairs to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. However, before the local administrative system was uniformly regulated, matters concerning "Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang" were still to be handled according to old precedents.[5] Yuan Shikai treated Tibet and other regions as equivalent to the interior, seeking to "standardize" the local administrative systems of Mongolia and Tibet in order to achieve the ideal of "unification of internal administration" and "great harmony of the nation." In February 1913, in a "practical strategy" for governing Tibet addressed to the 13

This intention was even more clearly reflected in the governing program of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, the central institution of the National Government responsible for border affairs such as those of Mongolia and Tibet. On February 23, 1929, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, in its governing program for the period of political tutelage, planned to "reform the old administrative systems of Mongolia and Tibet," while simultaneously "protecting the property of lamaseries" and "giving preferential treatment to religious leaders."⑨ In this program, the Commission clearly adhered to the principle of separation of politics and religion, not only stipulating politics and religion separately, but also explicitly proposing to reform the old administrative system of Tibet (i.e., the system of unification of politics and religion). In the view of the Commission, "the administrative systems and official organizations of Mongolia and Tibet form a separate system, which, having been followed to the present day, is no longer suitable. The Commission should, with all its efforts, implement political tutelage in all matters concerning Mongolia and Tibet, discarding the old and instituting the new."⑩ To this end, in the "Chronological Table of Political Tutelage Work," the Commission further formulated a six-year plan (1930-1935) for implementing the separation of politics and religion in Mongolia and Tibet. That is, the first period (ending in 1930): first, investigate the original administrative systems of Mongolia and Tibet; second, investigate the state of administrative power and religious power; third, propagate the reform of the administrative systems of Mongolia and Tibet. The second period (ending in 1931): first, establish a new administrative system; second, separate administrative power and religious power. The third period (ending in 1932): first, implement the renaming of administrative organs; second, implement the separate governance of politics and religion. The fourth period (ending in 1933): first, inspect the administrative conditions after reform. The fifth period (ending in 1934): proceed according to the overall plan separately. The sixth period (ending in 1935): continue the work of the fifth period.(11) The principle of "separate governance of politics and religion" or separation of politics and religion was clearly embodied here. In June 1929, Liu Puchen, a member of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission and later the head of the office of the Special Commissioner to Tibet, in a keynote speech on "the fundamental policy of the central government for controlling Mongolia and Tibet," proposed that the central government should "first separate politics and religion in Tibet, and then various matters will have a clue," and then could follow the example of Mongolia in establishing autonomous organs such as councils or assemblies, "gradually leading the Tibetan people to break away from the rule of religious leaders."(12) This speech further demonstrated the ultimate goal of the National Government to implement an administrative system reform of separating politics and religion in Tibet.

However, in the early years of the Republic, the local government of Tibet positioned its relationship with the central government as a purely religious so-called "patron-priest relationship" [3], or "offering-receiving relationship", denying any political subordinate relationship, hoping thereby to exclude central intervention and preserve the system of unification of religion and politics. Against this backdrop, the local government of Tibet, headed by the 13th Dalai

Although the National Government prepared to implement political integration in Tibet based on the separation of religion and politics, due to the domestic situation at the time and the estrangement between the Tibet region and the central government, the necessary preconditions for promoting the separation of religion and politics were clearly lacking. Therefore, the National Government adopted a policy of appeasement and conciliation toward Tibet, temporarily acquiescing to Tibet's system of unification of religion and politics. In September 1929, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission recognized that "the political and religious powers and authority of the

After the establishment of the Nationalist Government, it was first occupied with eliminating the original warlord separatist forces and basically ended the chaotic situation of more than a decade of incessant internal strife and frequent government changes in China, but it then immediately fell into the quagmire of "suppressing the Communists." At that time, the Nationalist Government lacked the strength and leisure to attend to the border regions, yet it had a relatively clear understanding of the grave situation there. Chiang Kai-shek once pointed out that "China's border regions have problems in every aspect" and believed that "the methods for solving border problems, viewed from their focal points, are no more than two: one is the rigid application of power, and the other is the flexible policy of conciliation. If the state's strength is ample and there is leisure to attend to the borderlands, the first method can naturally be adopted, and everything would be no problem; but today, in the revolutionary period, our strength is insufficient, and to solve border problems, we can only resort to policy. If there is an appropriate policy, although border problems cannot be thoroughly solved, they can at least be prevented from worsening, making them easier to solve in the future." Under the circumstances at the time, Chiang believed that only a "laissez-faire policy of permitting border autonomy" could be adopted, "for if autonomy is permitted, the border peoples will delight in freedom, be accustomed to tradition, and there will still be room for conciliation and control."(17) The "flexible policy of conciliation" was clearly an inheritance of the basic principles used by many central dynasties before the Qing to handle border ethnic issues, a continuation of China's traditional border governance policy. The only difference was that Chiang believed that when strength was sufficient, a forceful and active strategy of integrating the border regions could be adopted. The principles for handling border issues articulated by Chiang Kai-shek profoundly reflected the Nationalist Government's inability to manage border issues such as Tibet in the early days of its establishment. However, this did not mean that the Nationalist Government abandoned its basic policy of reforming Tibet's theocratic system and implementing the separation of religion and politics. In essence, the Nationalist Government did not regard the theocratic system as the natural system for Tibet during the period of political tutelage. The "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China for the Period of Political Tutelage," which had the nature of a constitution and was promulgated on June 1, 1931, stipulated: "The local systems of Mongolia and Tibet shall be separately determined by law in accordance with local conditions."(18) This provision in fact left room for the Nationalist Government to change Tibet's theocratic system, and in a sense denied the legitimacy of that system. At the Western Frontier Conference in September 1932, the Nationalist Government clearly stated its intention to "improve the administrative system of Tibet" and expressed three expectations for Tibetan compatriots, among which it stated: "Tibet's political system should also be improved, so that Tibetan compatriots can lead a modern political and economic life. Its historically inherited fine culture should be preserved, but the theocratic or unreasonable politics and customs that hinder the progress of civilization have no possibility of existing today."(19) This "theocratic or unreasonable politics and customs" clearly referred to the social condition of Tibet's theocratic system and the supremacy of religion. The Nationalist Government believed that this condition hindered the progress of Tibetan society and therefore sought to "improve" Tibet's political and religious system, separating politics from religion and introducing elements of modern society into Tibet. Although this expectation did not explicitly state the intention to implement the separation of religion and politics in Tibet, it contained a value orientation toward changing the theocratic system. However, under the historical circumstances of the time, this policy orientation released by the Nationalist Government merely indicated the central government's basic attitude toward Tibet's original backward system and had no practical significance for Tibet itself, which was in a state of estrangement from the central government.

II

At the end of 1933, the 13th Dalai

On 28 August 1934, Huang Musong arrived in Lhasa. The Nationalist Government expected that this trip would politically seek to “restore the original subordinate relationship between the central government and Tibet”; “if there are any aspects of Tibet’s local political organization that are not yet proper, detailed measures for improvement should be discussed in accordance with central government decrees, taking local special circumstances into consideration.” (24) The so-called “Tibet’s local political organization” clearly refers to the local government structure under the system of unification of politics and religion. The Nationalist Government intended to “improve” Tibet’s political situation in accordance with central government decrees and Tibet’s local realities. However, no matter how the improvement was carried out or to what degree, it conflicted with the mentality of the Tibetan local government, which stubbornly adhered to the system of unification of politics and religion. The Tibetan local government, adhering to the positioning of a “patron-priest relationship,” refused to acknowledge any political subordinate relationship with the central government, thereby resisting the infiltration of central political influence and safeguarding the system of unification of politics and religion. On 6 October 1934, when Huang Musong asked Zemo Kalön [3] “what is Tibet’s political relationship with the central government,” the de facto power holder of Tibet, Zemo Kalön, replied: “Externally, we can use our entire strength, but internally, Tibetans very much wish to continue the patron-priest relationship and do not want people from the interior to seize Tibetans’ rights.” (25) Zemo’s words indicate that the Tibetan local government still harbored lingering fears about the modernizing reforms carried out under the principle of separation of politics and religion during the New Policies of the late Qing dynasty, which had transformed Tibet’s system of unification of politics and religion. They were very worried that the central government would dominate Tibet’s political and religious authority, and thus were highly alert to any political intervention by the central government. In a telegram to the Executive Yuan, Huang Musong regarded Zemo’s words as “advocating complete autonomy for Tibet.”

Shortly thereafter, Tibet convened a “popular assembly” and, in the form of a collective resolution, stated its basic attitude toward the central government: first, that the Five Races Under One Union [4] was unsuitable for Tibet’s political-religious system, indicating an inability to cooperate; second, that Tibet was an “independent state,” unwilling to accept central government interference, and that the central government could not establish offices or station troops in Tibet; third, that the relationship between the central government and Tibet was a “patron-priest relationship.” (26) The Tibetan local government clearly believed that the central government under the republican constitution adhered to the principle of separation of politics and religion and modern democratic ideas. Fearing that acknowledging a political subordinate relationship with the central government would endanger Tibet’s system of unification of politics and religion, it vigorously upheld the so-called “patron-priest relationship.” On 17 October, the Tibetan local government stated to Huang Musong that Tibet was a “Buddhist state,” and that “its path of implementation requires the execution of unification of politics and religion. Changing it to the laws and regulations of the Republic would cause great contradictions for both religion and politics.” (27) The Tibetan local government not only regarded itself as a “Buddhist state” but also opposed the unification of politics and religion to the republican system of the Republic of China, strongly emphasizing the irreconcilability between the two. Regarding this concern of the Tibetan local government, Huang Musong repeatedly stated that the Republic of China had no conflict with Tibet

On the eve of his departure from Tibet, Huang Musong, in accordance with the principle of "moderate autonomy," presented the central government's policy framework for Tibet to the local

After Huang Musong returned to Nanjing, he was promptly appointed Chairman of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission. On October 2, 1935, in the "Instructions for the Special Commissioner Escorting the Panchen Lama Back to Tibet, Cheng Yun, on Entering Tibet," which he helped draft and which was promulgated by the Executive Yuan, it was clearly stated that "the National Government may, in accordance with the wishes of Tibetan officials and people, permit the maintenance of their inherent system of government and religion"; "the National Government, within the scope permitted by national law, respects Tibetan religion"; "the procedures for treating

Through the bloody struggle of the Chinese people during the War of Resistance against Japan, China’s international standing was greatly enhanced, ranking alongside Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union as one of the four great powers. The National Government became more confident in handling frontier ethnic affairs. On May 21, 1945, the Sixth National Congress of the Kuomintang adopted a declaration announcing that “Outer Mongolia and Tibet shall be granted a high degree of autonomy.” [3] A high degree of autonomy became an important policy of the National Government in handling the Tibet issue for a period after the war. On August 24, in a speech titled “Completing the Principle of Nationalism and Maintaining World Peace,” Chiang Kai-shek reiterated the resolution of the Sixth National Congress of the Kuomintang and declared: “If the Tibetan people express their desire for autonomy at this time, our government will, in accordance with our sincere tradition, grant them a high degree of autonomy. If in the future they achieve the economic conditions for independence, the National Government will, following the precedent of Outer Mongolia, help them attain independent status.” [4] The National Government’s high-profile announcement of the “high degree of autonomy” policy at this time was clearly intended to ensure that, as the post-war wave of international nationalism began to emerge, Tibet would accept the central government’s policy of a high degree of autonomy, avoid taking the path of seeking secession, and thereby be incorporated into the constitutional framework of post-war China. In fact, as subsequent historical developments show, the “high degree of autonomy” policy announced through Chiang Kai-shek’s mouth was merely a gesture by the National Government, or rather a propaganda strategy. Given that Outer Mongolia had already seceded under the name of a “high degree of autonomy,” the National Government could not and would not allow Tibet to achieve “independent status” under the guise of a “high degree of autonomy.” Moreover, this “high degree of autonomy” gradually disappeared from the National Government’s policy platform, evolving into “local autonomy.”

In August 1945, the National Government convened the Mongolian and Tibetan Local Conference, which adopted the “Draft Plan for a High Degree of Autonomy for the Tibet Region.” In this draft, the National Government declared that “on the premise of maintaining the integrity of the national territory, the central government permits a high degree of autonomy for the Tibet region,” clearly stipulating the powers of the local

After the victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, following Sun Yat-sen’s steps for founding the nation, the National Government began to implement constitutional government nationwide, and in December 1946 formulated the Constitution of the Republic of China. This constitution specially stipulated: “The system of autonomy of Tibet shall be guaranteed.” (41) What exactly this “system of autonomy” referred to was not explicitly defined in the constitution as the system of unification of religion and politics, which left room for maneuvering in changing Tibet’s system of unification of religion and politics during the process of implementing autonomy. At the constitutional revision conference, the Tibetan delegation submitted nine opinions to the central government, among which, taking Tibet as a “place where the Buddha’s Dharma is practiced,” they requested the central government to “permit all original political and religious powers of Tibet to continue to be managed

According to the spirit of the Sixth National Congress of the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek’s speech on August 24, 1945, the National Government ordered the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission to be responsible for “conducting research on the system of Tibetan self-government and preparing the means to safeguard it.” [3] Regarding the system of theocracy implemented in Tibet, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission held: “It has its historical origins, geographical environment, and social background; it has evolved over a long time, and political customs are in harmony. The central government’s policy toward Tibet respects the people’s beliefs and customs, accommodates the local inherent political and religious form, and provides legal safeguards, in order to stabilize local order and enhance the well-being of the people.” [4] Starting from this premise, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission believed that the system of Tibetan self-government stipulated in the Constitution “naturally refers to the current theocratic system in Tibet,” but “the actual scope of this system and how its relationship with the central government should be clearly defined” remained to be studied. [5] However, if the theocratic system were determined to be the system of Tibetan self-government stipulated in the Constitution, then the central government would have to preserve Tibet’s original political form, which would obviously contradict the basic concepts of modern constitutional government and also conflict with the principle of separation of church and state in the previously promulgated “Postwar Plan for Political Facilities in Mongolia and Tibet.” Therefore, on October 26, 1948, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission again stated: “Whether the so-called system of Tibetan self-government refers to the current theocratic system in Tibet… remains to be studied.” [6] The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission was indecisive between maintaining Tibet’s theocratic system or incorporating Tibet into political integration according to constitutional concepts. This contradictory attitude actually reflected the National Government’s difficult mindset in handling the relationship between politics and religion in Tibet.

Regardless of how the National Government defined Tibet’s system of self-government, the local government of Tibet believed that the system that should be implemented in Tibet was its inherent theocratic system, and therefore maintained a high degree of vigilance against any intention to change the theocratic system. Especially after the Reting Incident in 1947, [7] what the local government of Tibet sought was no longer “high autonomy” but “independence and self-reliance,” and it attempted to demonstrate its stance to the international community through activities such as participating in the Asian Relations Conference and sending a trade delegation abroad, [8] thereby seeking to permanently maintain the already rigid and backward theocratic system. Toward the central government, the local government of Tibet also continuously expressed its attitude of upholding the theocratic system, stating that “Tibet is a land where the Buddha’s teachings flourish; please allow the original political and religious powers of Tibet to continue to be managed

The Nanjing National Government, inheriting Sun Yat-sen’s behest, hoped to implement modern constitutional governance throughout the country, and, in the form of promoting local self-government, introduce the concepts of democracy and republic into Tibet, transforming Tibet’s original political and religious conditions. It expected not only to reform Tibetan Buddhism itself, liberating people from blind religious faith and shaping their democratic consciousness, but also to use this to change Tibet’s long-standing system of unification of religion and state, break the political pattern in which politics and religion were fused and political and religious power was concentrated in the hands of a single person, and achieve political integration between Tibet and the interior, thereby resisting the aggression and infiltration of Tibet, Chinese territory, by external forces such as Britain. It should be said that this principle of the National Government reflected the historical necessity of modern China’s construction of a nation-state. However, the National Government lacked effective control over Tibet and was fundamentally unable to extend its rule there. Under these circumstances, implementing the principle of separation of religion and state to transform Tibet’s system of unification of religion and state clearly lacked the necessary conditions, so that the “flexible policy of conciliation and control” proposed by Chiang Kai-shek in 1934 became the main thread of the National Government’s governance of Tibet. Although the National Government was a republican government with a modern constitutional character, in governing the borderlands it never escaped the traditional mold of pacification and conciliation, and removing Tibet’s “special form” of administration and stripping away the traditional relationship between politics and religion in Tibet became the ideal goal of the National Government’s governance of Tibet.

However, the Tibetan local government, under the pretext of insisting that its relationship with the central government was only one of “patron and priest” or “donor and recipient,” resolutely rejected central government interference in the internal affairs of the Tibetan locality, thereby safeguarding the system of unification of religion and state. Religion held an unquestionably dominant position in the daily spiritual life of the Tibetan monk and lay populace and in the upper political structure; maintaining religion, that is, the system of unification of religion and state, became the fundamental purpose of the Tibetan local government. Mr. Liu Shengqi once pointed out that a considerable portion of the privileged class in Tibet suspected “whether the present central government would still come to maintain their religion,” and moreover, “what frightened them most was that once the central government’s power reached Tibet, whether the power of this special class would be completely eliminated. They did not clearly understand what a democratic republican system of government was, but they had personally seen that the sacred and inviolable Qing emperor had been reduced to a commoner, and all the once-glorious princes and high ministers had vanished without a trace. Then, once Tibet became the same as the interior, would they and everything they now had also vanish without a trace?” [3] Mr. Liu’s words should reveal the hidden anxieties deep in the hearts of the Tibetan monk and lay upper strata. Moreover, the

Historically, ever since the formation of the system of union of religion and state in Tibet, periods when separation of religion and state was implemented all occurred after forceful intervention by the central government. Whether to implement union of religion and state or separation of religion and state basically depended on the degree of forceful intervention by the central government. During the period of rule by the National Government, with domestic troubles and foreign invasions coming one after another, the central government had neither the time nor the strength to act as an intervening force to break this "stagnant" situation. To promote separation of religion and state in a society like Tibet, where conservative forces were quite powerful, it was necessary to rely on the strong support of the central government. This central government was not the central government of the late Qing dynasty, nor any of the successive Republican governments, but the New China founded in 1949. From the time the central government suppressed the rebellion in the Tibet region in 1959 to the formal establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965, Tibet truly achieved separation of religion and state, and the system of union of religion and state that had been in place for nearly seven hundred years truly became history.

(This article received careful guidance from my esteemed teacher, Mr. Zhou Weizhou. I hereby express my heartfelt gratitude!)

Notes:

① Han Dayuan, "On the Constitutional Value of the Principle of Separation of Religion and State," *Law Science*, No. 10, 2005.

② Bureau of Information, Executive Yuan, *The System of Union of Religion and State in Tibet*, November 1947, p. 6.

③ Shen Zonglian and Liu Shengqi, *Tibet and the Tibetans*, trans. Liu Xiaoqing, China Tibetology Publishing House, 2006, p. 126.

④ China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, China Tibetology Publishing House, 1994, p. 1622.

⑤ See China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, p. 2346.

⑥ See China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, p. 2359.

⑦ For details, see the "Constitution of the Republic of China" (promulgated October 10, 1923), in Xu Zhengguang, ed., *Compilation of Important Policies on Mongolia and Tibet since the Republic of China*, published by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, 2001, p. 10.

⑧ Second Historical Archives of China, ed., *Compilation of Archival Materials on the History of the Republic of China*, Series 5, Volume 1, Politics (2), Jiangsu Ancient Books Publishing House, 1994, pp. 84-85.

⑨ See "Program of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of the National Government for the Period of Political Tutelage (February 23, 1929)," Archives of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of the National Government, 141/95, held in the Second Historical Archives of China.

⑩ "Explanatory Notes" attached to the "Annual Schedule of Political Tutelage Work of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission during the Period of Political Tutelage," July 1929, held in the Archives of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

(11) See "Explanatory Notes" attached to the "Annual Schedule of Political Tutelage Work of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission during the Period of Political Tutelage," July 1929, held in the Archives of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

(12) See *The Premier's Bequeathed Instructions on Mongolia and Tibet and the National Government's Laws and Decrees on Mongolia and Tibet*, compiled and printed by the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, 1934, p. 310.

(13) Zhu Shaoyi, *A Record of What I Saw and Heard in Lhasa*, Commercial Press, 1947, p. 28.

(14) China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, pp. 2584-2585.

(15) China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, pp. 2477-2478.

(16) China Tibetology Research Center et al., eds., *Compilation of Archival Historical Materials on Relations between the Tibet Region and the Central Government since the Yuan Dynasty*, p. 2518.

(17) Chiang Kai-shek, "China's Border Issues" (March 7, 1934), in Qin Xiaoyi, ed., *Complete Collection of President Chiang Kai-shek's Thought and Speeches*, Vol. 12, published by the Central Cultural Supplies Agency, 1984, pp. 105-108.

(18) "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China during the Period of Political Tutelage," in Xu Zhengguang, ed., *Compilation of Important Policies on Mongolia and Tibet since the Republic of China*, p. 19.

(19) Huang Fensheng, *New Gazetteer of Mongolia and Tibet*, Zhonghua Book Company, 1938, p. 430.

(20) This refers to Outer Mongolia, under the influence of the Soviet Union, implementing separation of religion and state, prohibiting the reincarnation of the Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu, confiscating monastery property, forcibly ordering lamas to return to lay life, and causing great destruction to Tibetan Buddhism.

(21) Compiled by the China Tibetology Research Center et al., *Collection of Archival Historical Materials on the Relationship between the Central Government and Local Tibet since the Yuan Dynasty*, p. 2585.

(22)(23) [US] Melvyn C. Goldstein, *A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State*, trans. Du Yongbin, China Tibetology Publishing House, 2005, p. 168.

(24) Kong Qingzong, “A Record of Huang Musong’s Entry into Tibet,” *Selected Historical Materials on Tibet*, Vol. 5, p. 78.

(25) Jointly compiled by the China Tibetology Research Center and the Second Historical Archives of China, *Selected Archives on the Funeral and Memorial of the

(26) See China Tibetology Research Center and Second Historical Archives of China, eds., *Selected Archives on the Funeral Ceremonies for the Thirteenth

(27) Compiled by the China Tibetology Research Center and the Second Historical Archives of China: *Selected Archives on the Funeral and Memorial Ceremonies