Second Kingdom by the Mongol Khan, which was a fait accompli when the Qing Dynasty was founded. Gusri Khan continued as “Dharma King” (a primarily military function) until his death in 1655. After his death, the Fifth Dalai Lama assumed complete control of temporal affairs in Tibet and ruled without any outside interference.94 Also, despite the presence of the so-called “kings” of Tibet, putative successors to Gusri Khan, the Dalai Lamas wielded all the actual power, and the “Dharma Kings” served under the Dalai Lamas. Thus, a Jesuit living in Tibet early in the eighteenth century said of the Seventh Dalai Lama and his government: “The hierarchy existing in Thibet is not secular but superior to all temporal and regular government. Head of all is the Grand Lama of Thibet. . . . He rules not only over religious, but over temporal matters, as he is really the absolute master of all Thibet.”95 A more succinct description of the effective exercise of sovereignty can scarcely be imagined. The cho-yon relationship was established between the Dalai Lamas of Tibet and the Manchu Emperors in 1639, well before the latter conquered China and while the secular monarchs of the Second Kingdom still ruled Tibet. It was a personal spiritual relationship between them with “no formal role for a Tibetan Lama at the Manchu Court.”96 This did not change when the Manchus conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty to rule their new “Chinese empire.” As already noted, the primary obligation of the Manchu Emperors in the choyon relationship was the protection of the Dalai Lama, his “Church” and country. Qing troops entered Tibet four times for that declared purpose -- “in 1720 to drive out the invading Dzungar 94
Richardson, Tibet and Its History, supra note 16, at 42.
95
I. Desideri, S.J., An Account of Tibet (London 1932) at 206.
96
van Walt van Praag, The Status of Tibet, supra note 5, at 124.
28 09292\5RTP01!.DOC:269341