Kalmyk-Tibetan Relations at the Turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries

• Published in: Oriental Studies
• Main Authors: V. T. Tepkeev, V. P. Sanchirov
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Российской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центр 2018-04-01
• Subjects: tibet; kalmyks; ayuka; 6th dalai lama; dzungaria; kalmyk khanate; tibetan- kalmyk relations.
• Online Access: https://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/148
• ISSN: 2619-0990; 2619-1008

The article deals with an episode in the history of Tibetan-Kalmyk relations at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. Galdan  Boshugtu Khan’s death and the 6th Dalai Lama’s formal assumption of political power in Tibet in 1697, arrival of Arabjur’s  mission in Lhasa in 1698 — all these events like links in a chain  caused the Tibetan-Kalmyk negotiations aimed to discuss the  possibility of the Kalmyks’ resettlement from the Volga to the  Kokonor (Qinghai) region for the protection of Tibet from Manchu  aggression. The available sources — though numerous enough — do  not clarify the reasons for the contacts and urgent endowment of the title of ‘Khan’ alongside with the corresponding signet to the Kalmyk  ruler. However, the circumstances and miserable consequences that  shaped the dramatic fate of the 6th Dalai Lama and that of Sangye  Gyatso clearly identify the vector of development of Tibetan-Kalmyk relations during the period under consideration. There is no doubt  that it was Desi Sangye Gyatso who conducted Tibet’s foreign policy  on behalf of the young 6th Dalai Lama and, thus, acted as the  initiator of the secret agreement. The endowment of the title ‘Khan’  to Ayuka (Ayushi) by the Buddhist clergy was supposed to contribute to the soonest implementation of the idea. As for Ayuka himself, this could open a prospect of becoming not only a “Dharma protector” but rather — the leader of a unifi ed Oirat state. The main obstacle  for implementing the idea was that the then Kalmyk community was  disintegrated enough which was aggravated by the centrifugal  processes, namely the mass resettlement of Kalmyks to the Don  River region. These very circumstances as well as the reluctance of  the Kalmyk elites to leave eastwards undermined Ayuka’s  determination to move beyond the Russian borders. The idea of  returning to the ancestral lands was fi nally supported by his eldest  sons, with Sanjab being the main inspirer. The 1701 confl ict was also caused by the struggle for power within the ruling family and  resembled an attempted “palace coup”. In its aftermath the  mutineers faced the resistance of that part of the Kalmyk elites who  strongly opposed to leaving eastwards. The lack of a clear action  plan, open siding with Ayuka of most infl uential taishas (noble  chieftains) and strenuous support for him from the Tsarist  government finally resulted in the defeat of the mutineers. A part of them headed by Chakdorjab reconciled with Ayuka while the others  headed by Sanjab chose to completely sever relations and left for Dzungaria. Still, the author concludes that their ultimate destination point was not Dzungaria but rather – the highlands of Tibet revered  and worshipped by the Buddhist believers.