You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> No.36 2006 7 Buyanlham TumurjavKey words: Mongols, <strong>Mongolia</strong>, <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty, Khan, khoshuuTable <strong>of</strong> contents1. Historical <strong>in</strong>sights on relations <strong>of</strong> Mongols and <strong>Manchu</strong>s2. Adm<strong>in</strong>istrative system and social structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> under <strong>Manchu</strong> rule3. Trade relations with <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchants4. What <strong>Manchu</strong> rule brought to <strong>Mongolia</strong>?5. Relations with Russia6. References1. Historical <strong>in</strong>sights on relations <strong>of</strong> Mongols and <strong>Manchu</strong>sBy early 20 th century Mongol territories were under <strong>Manchu</strong> or Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty rule, which lasted more than200 years. Like any o<strong>the</strong>r nationals, who became subjects to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, Mongols certa<strong>in</strong>ly were notalways obedient followers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir policy. Mongol nationals became parts <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty one after ano<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong> accordance with <strong>the</strong>ir peculiar structure based on <strong>the</strong> regions. Therefore, it is not only <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g, but alsoimportant to see how <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s managed to rule such a big territory for such a long time.- 37 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamAlthough <strong>the</strong> Mongols showed <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> unit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir efforts, no positive actions were taken after <strong>the</strong>conference for <strong>the</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>t Mongol and Oirat struggle. After <strong>the</strong> death <strong>of</strong> Baatar Khuntaij his son Galdan seized <strong>the</strong>power. Galdan cont<strong>in</strong>ued his fa<strong>the</strong>r’s policy to expand peaceful political and economic relations with Russia. Healso tried to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> trade relations with Ch<strong>in</strong>a by dispatch<strong>in</strong>g embassies and caravans <strong>the</strong>re every year.However, his relations with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s deteriorated after a <strong>Manchu</strong> Emperor Kansi put a limit to <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>embassies and caravans. “Realiz<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> person <strong>of</strong> Galdan he had a serious opponent, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> EmperorKansi made numerous efforts to set <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Mongol feudal nobles aga<strong>in</strong>st Galdan”. 10 Subsequently <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong>s succeeded <strong>in</strong> provok<strong>in</strong>g a war between Khalkha and Oirat Mongols <strong>in</strong> 1688 but Galdan managed tow<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fight. The defeat <strong>of</strong> Khalkha <strong>Mongolia</strong> <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>tra-Mongol struggle made <strong>the</strong>m much more weaker andf<strong>in</strong>ally <strong>in</strong> 1691, “<strong>in</strong> an elaborate ceremony at Dolonor <strong>in</strong> Inner <strong>Mongolia</strong>, <strong>the</strong> subjection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Khalkha Mongolsto <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule was formalized, and eastern <strong>Mongolia</strong> effectively became a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> empire”. 11It took about six more decades for <strong>the</strong> last Mongol state-Zuungar or Oirat <strong>Mongolia</strong> to fall a victim to <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong> rule. Dur<strong>in</strong>g 1755-1758 Zuungar <strong>Mongolia</strong> was engaged <strong>in</strong> an active struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s and<strong>the</strong> major anti-<strong>Manchu</strong> movements were led by Amarsanaa, an Oirat-Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ce, and Ch<strong>in</strong>gunjav, aKhotogoid 12 Pr<strong>in</strong>ce. Compared with <strong>the</strong> resistance <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Mongols’ struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s, <strong>the</strong>se revoltscarried several peculiar characteristics: 1) it comprised all level <strong>of</strong> society, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g arats (common people), lowrank lamas and representatives <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ces or high rank people with titles; 2) those engaged <strong>in</strong> revolts used notonly arms but also used different oppos<strong>in</strong>g methods like leav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>Manchu</strong> duties, driv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir cattle deep<strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> steppes and mov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to o<strong>the</strong>r areas etc.; and f<strong>in</strong>ally, although most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> revoltswere carried out by high or low rank pr<strong>in</strong>ces, <strong>in</strong> some places management <strong>of</strong> revolt groups were even <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>hands <strong>of</strong> arats. Despite <strong>the</strong>ir active struggle, Oirat Mongol revolts were severely suppressed by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s andf<strong>in</strong>ally with <strong>the</strong> fall <strong>of</strong> an Oirat Mongol state <strong>in</strong> 1756, all <strong>Mongolia</strong> became subjects to <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty rule.Thus, by late 18 th century all Mongol territories, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Inner <strong>Mongolia</strong>, Khalkha <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Oirat<strong>Mongolia</strong> became parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> state. Mongols lost all <strong>the</strong>ir power to have <strong>the</strong>ir own and <strong>in</strong>dependentpolicy regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir territories. Under <strong>Manchu</strong> rule <strong>the</strong>y had no Khan, no government and even no capitalcity and all its state authority was <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> state and its Emperor. The Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces weregiven <strong>the</strong> right to be <strong>in</strong> charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir only regional <strong>of</strong>fices. These <strong>of</strong>fices, <strong>in</strong> turn, had to report on <strong>the</strong>iractivities to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> Emperor.- 40 -
No.36 2006 7 The <strong>Manchu</strong>s carried out separate policies with regard to <strong>the</strong> nationals who became <strong>the</strong>ir subjects, <strong>in</strong>particular with regard to <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese and <strong>Mongolia</strong>ns up to an early 20 th century. Perhaps, as it is stated <strong>in</strong> abook titled <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>, <strong>the</strong>y (<strong>Manchu</strong>s) had doubt on <strong>the</strong>ir long last<strong>in</strong>g existence, thus, <strong>the</strong>y pursueda policy to keep <strong>Mongolia</strong>n affairs, which had a similar lifestyle to <strong>the</strong>m, separate from <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese. And if<strong>the</strong>ir power failed to exist <strong>in</strong> Beij<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong>y might have thought that <strong>the</strong>y could move <strong>the</strong>ir government to<strong>Mongolia</strong>. However, no such th<strong>in</strong>gs were dest<strong>in</strong>ed to be happened.2. Adm<strong>in</strong>istrative system and social structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> under <strong>Manchu</strong> ruleThe ma<strong>in</strong> apparatus that was govern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Mongolia</strong> under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule was <strong>the</strong> M<strong>in</strong>istry, govern<strong>in</strong>g stateaffairs <strong>of</strong> Outer <strong>Mongolia</strong>. It was located <strong>in</strong> Beij<strong>in</strong>g and developed policies and guidel<strong>in</strong>es to be used on<strong>Mongolia</strong>. The most authoritative organization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> state with a duty to control and supervise Outer<strong>Mongolia</strong> was located <strong>in</strong> Uliastai, a town <strong>in</strong> Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>. The follow<strong>in</strong>g table illustrates <strong>the</strong>organizational structure <strong>of</strong> Khalkha <strong>Mongolia</strong> under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule dur<strong>in</strong>g 1691-1754 (Table 1).Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule aimag (some sources say aimak) became <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> and major unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>adm<strong>in</strong>istration. After subjugat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Mongolia</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s rema<strong>in</strong>ed Tusheet Khan, Setsen Khan and ZasagtKhan aimags as <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istrative units. In addition, <strong>the</strong>y established Sa<strong>in</strong> Noyon Khan aimag bytak<strong>in</strong>g 19 khoshuus from Tusheet Khan aimag. This aimag was established and given to a pr<strong>in</strong>ce namedDashdondov for his assistance to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st Oirat Mongols <strong>in</strong> 1725.Khoshuus (banner) were governed by Zasag noyon 13 . They were similar to a division <strong>in</strong> military terms. Thema<strong>in</strong> unit under khoshuu was soum (squadron), which was similar to a military unit. A soum was formed <strong>of</strong>150 men (<strong>of</strong> military age) with <strong>the</strong>ir families. If <strong>the</strong> number exceeded 150 men after establish<strong>in</strong>g a soum, <strong>the</strong>na half soum or khondogo was formed. Soums were divided <strong>in</strong>to arvans (arav means ten <strong>in</strong> numbers). Taijs 14were not subject to soums, <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>the</strong>y formed bags or otogs separately.Ikh Khuree 15 ’s Department was established <strong>in</strong> 1758 and was responsible for not only <strong>the</strong> affairs <strong>of</strong> TusheetKhan and Setsen Khan aimags and Bogd Jibzundamba’s shav but also was responsible for <strong>the</strong> relations withRussia. In 1762 Khovd Department was formed and was <strong>in</strong> charge <strong>of</strong> affairs <strong>of</strong> a Khovd prov<strong>in</strong>ce.- 41 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamThe <strong>Manchu</strong> EmperorDepartment supervis<strong>in</strong>gadm<strong>in</strong>strative affairs <strong>of</strong> Outer<strong>Mongolia</strong>Uliastai <strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficeUliastai and 4 aimag's jasaaSa<strong>in</strong> NoyonaimagZasagtNoyonaimagTusheetKhan aimagSetsenKhan aimagKhoshuuKhoshuuKhuree's ErdeneShanzav (treasurer)KhoshuuKhoshuuSoumSoumJibzundambaKhutagt's shav’ otogSoumSoumBag Bag Bag Bag10 gers 10 gers 10 gers 10 gersTable 1 Source: <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Publish<strong>in</strong>g House, 1999, p. 86- 42 -
No.36 2006 7 After occupy<strong>in</strong>g Oirat <strong>Mongolia</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s created two aimags by divid<strong>in</strong>g Durvud 16<strong>in</strong>to left and rightsw<strong>in</strong>gs –Dalai Khan and Unen Zorigt Khan aimags <strong>in</strong> 1759. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y created many small khoshuus withan aim to prevent from any opportunities for all Mongols to become united. Consequently, <strong>Mongolia</strong> wasdivided <strong>in</strong>to many small adm<strong>in</strong>istrative units and by <strong>the</strong> 2 nd half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 18 th century it had 125 khoshuus,which <strong>in</strong>cluded Khuvsgul, Khovd and Tagna Uriankhai 17prov<strong>in</strong>ces as well.Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, <strong>the</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> was divided <strong>in</strong>to two categories as noble and non-noblecitizens. The noble population was also divided among <strong>the</strong>mselves as rul<strong>in</strong>g (those who governed khoshuus)and non-rul<strong>in</strong>g (those who did not). The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g population was ei<strong>the</strong>r arats 18or lamas. Arats <strong>in</strong> turn weredivided <strong>in</strong>to albat, khamjlaga 19and shavi nars 20 . Arats were subject to <strong>Mongolia</strong>n khoshuus or banners and <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> end to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> authority. They had no land and needed a permission to move from one place toano<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>in</strong> general were burdened by numerous labor and taxes. They were engaged <strong>in</strong> services such aspostal relays, frontier guards, military men and herdsmen. Hamjlagas were owed by nobles, both rul<strong>in</strong>g andnon-rul<strong>in</strong>g, and engaged <strong>in</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> services for <strong>the</strong>ir owners and <strong>the</strong>ir families. Shavis had <strong>the</strong> samefate as hamjlagas but were owed by monasteries and <strong>the</strong>ir khutagts.As for lamas, <strong>the</strong>y had an exclusive position dur<strong>in</strong>g this period. Both <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence and number <strong>of</strong> monasteriesand lamas or Buddhist priests <strong>in</strong>creased. Lamas were divided among <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>in</strong>to ranks and degrees. Thehighest role was given to khuvilgaans or “liv<strong>in</strong>g gods” who were equal to upper class nobles. In 1641 <strong>the</strong> son<strong>of</strong> Tusheet Khan Gombodorj was promulgated as khuvilgaan under <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> Under Gegeen. He greatly<strong>in</strong>fluenced Khalkha pr<strong>in</strong>ces to accept <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule dur<strong>in</strong>g Doloon Nuur congress <strong>in</strong> 1691.Consequently, <strong>the</strong> monasteries and temples became powerful and enormous amount <strong>of</strong> wealth was circulat<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir hands. The monasteries were ruled by khutagts or senior monastery lamas, who <strong>in</strong> turn were divided<strong>in</strong>to seal-bear<strong>in</strong>g and non-seal bear<strong>in</strong>g khutagts. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, seals were given to thosekhutagts whose shavi nars number reached 700 and <strong>the</strong>re were 11 seal-bear<strong>in</strong>g and around 50 non-sealbear<strong>in</strong>g khutagts and khuvilgaans. The khutagts had <strong>the</strong>ir own shavi nars who played <strong>the</strong> same duties as albatarats. “Predictably, <strong>the</strong> Ch’<strong>in</strong>g government was sensitive to <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lamaist church and to <strong>the</strong>obedience it commanded among all <strong>Mongolia</strong>n and Tibetan Buddhists.” 21Thus, <strong>the</strong>y exempted higher ranklamas from service duties and payment <strong>of</strong> taxes. The highest-rank<strong>in</strong>g khutagt was Jibzundamba (or- 43 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamJavzandamba) Khutagt <strong>of</strong> Urga. Jibzundamba Khutagt’s shavi system was formed when many pr<strong>in</strong>ces hadgiven shavi nars to Undur Gegeen. Later both human and material capital <strong>of</strong> Jibzundamba Khutagt was calledIkh shav’ (great disciple). Most <strong>of</strong> its wealth was formed <strong>of</strong> gifts (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g men) and <strong>of</strong>fers given to <strong>the</strong>monastery and by “…1873, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n Bogd Javzandamba, <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n religion, had under him9.916 households, total<strong>in</strong>g 83.983 people. Their total herd counted half a million head, <strong>of</strong> which 36.000 were<strong>the</strong> property <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> supreme lama.” 22As shav’ was also exempted from most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> taxes and duties, <strong>the</strong>re had been many who wanted to be shav<strong>in</strong>ars. In addition, many nobles registered <strong>the</strong>ir livestock on <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> monasteries and lamas, and this later(when <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> regime fell) led to many arguments over who owned <strong>the</strong> cattle. However, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>government started tak<strong>in</strong>g some restrictive measures aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> above-stated practices. They issued an orderunder which only lamas who were resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> monastery and those, who did not possess any livestock <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> countryside, could benefit exemptions from services and taxes.As most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> men <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country were engaged <strong>in</strong> religious activities, <strong>Mongolia</strong> had not seen anyprogressive improvements with regard to <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>in</strong> early 20 thcentury. “Lamaism diverted aconsiderable proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> male population from productive labour, thus imped<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>national economy and hold<strong>in</strong>g back <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’s population.” 23The country was fac<strong>in</strong>gserious problems, <strong>in</strong> particular, impoverished economy, high taxes, decreases <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> population aswell as cattle, and enormous debts owed to <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchants.3. Trade relations with <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchantsBoth <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Ch<strong>in</strong>a became subjugated to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> or Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty rule and although <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong>s had given to <strong>Manchu</strong>, Mongol and Ch<strong>in</strong>ese languages <strong>of</strong>ficial status, it pursued different policieswith regard to <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Ch<strong>in</strong>a. The <strong>Manchu</strong>s did not want to m<strong>in</strong>gle all <strong>the</strong> nationalities, which wereunder <strong>the</strong>ir control. Perhaps, <strong>the</strong>y were fear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> any possible opposition that may be carried out collectivelyby different nationalities aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong>ir rule. Or perhaps, as earlier stated, <strong>the</strong>y were not sure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir eternalexistence. Thus, if <strong>the</strong>y failed <strong>in</strong> one area <strong>the</strong>y might have thought that <strong>the</strong>y could move to ano<strong>the</strong>r one.- 44 -
No.36 2006 7 Moreover, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s also prohibited <strong>in</strong>termarriages among Mongols and Ch<strong>in</strong>ese, use <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese language<strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>, and Ch<strong>in</strong>ese traders br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir families to <strong>Mongolia</strong>.However, commercial relations between <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Ch<strong>in</strong>a did have a special impact <strong>in</strong> relations between<strong>the</strong>se countries. Prior to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, <strong>Mongolia</strong> had trade relations with Ch<strong>in</strong>a on its frontier areas. As<strong>Manchu</strong>s had no <strong>in</strong>tention to mix <strong>the</strong> nationalities under its rule, it was employ<strong>in</strong>g a strict policy towards <strong>the</strong>Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchants. To conduct trade <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese needed to have trad<strong>in</strong>g licenses. At <strong>the</strong>beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g only three places were authorized for trade activities - Khaalgan, Khukh-khot and Doloon Nuur.Later <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s allowed <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese traders to go to o<strong>the</strong>r areas but special restrictions were imposed, forexample, on <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> people stay<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> one place, <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> items, and etc. At <strong>the</strong> same time, aone-year time limit was imposed for those who wished to rema<strong>in</strong> longer.Trade relations between <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Ch<strong>in</strong>a were based on a barter trade. Livestock produces were <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>items for such a trade as <strong>Mongolia</strong>’s economy is based on animal husbandry s<strong>in</strong>ce old times. Mongols growfive types <strong>of</strong> domestic animals, which <strong>in</strong>clude sheep, goat, horse, cow and camel. These animals are bred andtra<strong>in</strong>ed from wild animals, thus, <strong>the</strong>y suit well to <strong>the</strong> constant migration or lifestyle <strong>of</strong> nomadic people. Inaddition, this economy has a seasonal character as livestock produces can be processed only dur<strong>in</strong>g warmseasons.Despite <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> restrictions, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchants was grow<strong>in</strong>g. They were settled <strong>in</strong>populated areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> such as Urga, Khyagta, Uliastai and Khovd. As stated above, <strong>Mongolia</strong>ns used<strong>the</strong>ir livestock produces as trade items and purchased <strong>in</strong> return Ch<strong>in</strong>ese silk, cotton fabrics, tea, tobacco,metal, porcela<strong>in</strong> and pottery wares, and household items. Due to <strong>the</strong> seasonal character <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir economy,<strong>Mongolia</strong>ns had to purchase necessary items on credit, which later became <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> cause <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>impoverishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population and badly hurt <strong>the</strong> whole economy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country.Credit operations <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese traders dated back to <strong>the</strong> late 17 th century. At <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial stage, though <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong>s were impos<strong>in</strong>g various restrictions, <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese managed to have a firm base <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. ForCh<strong>in</strong>ese traders it was a pr<strong>of</strong>itable bus<strong>in</strong>ess and <strong>the</strong>y used any opportunity to charge high <strong>in</strong>terest rates. Therewere such big money-lend<strong>in</strong>g or usurer firms as Da Sh<strong>in</strong> Ku, Tyan I de (or Nast), Yuan Shan de, Se Sun chan,- 45 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamYun She hyo whose capital was worth <strong>of</strong> 40 million roubles. 24Besides provid<strong>in</strong>g high <strong>in</strong>terest credits, <strong>the</strong>ygot a huge pr<strong>of</strong>it by purchas<strong>in</strong>g cattle and raw materials at a very low price <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> and sell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m at ahigher price <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a. For <strong>in</strong>stance, “<strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese were purchas<strong>in</strong>g a sheep for a half brick <strong>of</strong> tea and a horsefor 7 bricks <strong>of</strong> tea and sell<strong>in</strong>g a sheep for 3 lan 25 s (1 lan was worth 10 bricks <strong>of</strong> tea <strong>in</strong> Khaalgan <strong>the</strong>n) and ahorse for 18 lans”. 26Some large Ch<strong>in</strong>ese trad<strong>in</strong>g firms <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> formed a jo<strong>in</strong>t company. Such companies set monopoly pricesfor raw materials as well as for transportation <strong>of</strong> such goods. They <strong>in</strong>creased <strong>the</strong> high annual <strong>in</strong>terest rate <strong>of</strong>36%, set by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> government, as many times as <strong>the</strong>y wished by add<strong>in</strong>g more <strong>in</strong>terests if a borrowerfailed to pay debts by due date. In some cases, such people were obliged to perform any types <strong>of</strong> work for <strong>the</strong>usurers. Therefore, by <strong>the</strong> late 19 th century <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> was <strong>in</strong> disorder due to huge debtsowed to <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese usurers, decrease <strong>in</strong> number <strong>of</strong> livestock and ris<strong>in</strong>g taxes. <strong>Mongolia</strong>n nobles were alsous<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> service <strong>of</strong> usurers and even some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> high-rank<strong>in</strong>g nobles were shift<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir personal debts to <strong>the</strong>people <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir khoshuu or soums, and that made <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>of</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ary people unbearable.4. What <strong>Manchu</strong> rule brought to <strong>Mongolia</strong>?Hence, it is important to see what <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule brought to Mongols and <strong>Mongolia</strong>. How <strong>the</strong>y managed tocontrol <strong>Mongolia</strong> more than 200 years. From <strong>the</strong> above discussion <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g conclusions can be made.What <strong>Mongolia</strong> ga<strong>in</strong>ed or lost:1. Dis<strong>in</strong>tegration: The <strong>Manchu</strong>s tried to make Mongols as dis<strong>in</strong>tegrated as possible. Thus, regionsalready <strong>in</strong> dis<strong>in</strong>tegration were easy targets though some could resist for quite a long time. The<strong>Manchu</strong>s knew that united Mongols would be very difficult to deal with, so, <strong>the</strong>y took all possiblemeasures to divide <strong>Mongolia</strong> <strong>in</strong>to many small units. As a result, <strong>Mongolia</strong> was dividedadm<strong>in</strong>istratively <strong>in</strong>to 4 aimags, which <strong>in</strong> turn <strong>in</strong>to many khoshuus, and <strong>the</strong>y were followed bysoums, bags and gers respectively. In addition, such a division made <strong>the</strong> population split up andscattered over a huge territory.2. Poverty: <strong>Mongolia</strong>n people became highly dependent on <strong>Manchu</strong> or Ch<strong>in</strong>ese usurers who werecharg<strong>in</strong>g enormous rates for any types <strong>of</strong> credits. As stated earlier, <strong>the</strong>y charged a very high <strong>in</strong>terest- 46 -
No.36 2006 7 rate on credits, which were supposed to be paid with<strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> period <strong>of</strong> time. If such a time limitexpired, <strong>the</strong>y added up ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>terest and such a cycle was cont<strong>in</strong>ued fur<strong>the</strong>r. Consequently, <strong>the</strong>borrowers, ma<strong>in</strong>ly arats became tied <strong>in</strong> most cases for <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> his life to <strong>the</strong> usurers. To such aheavy burden <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong>y also had to pay for <strong>the</strong> loans made by <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>in</strong>ces <strong>of</strong> khoshuu orsoums. It made <strong>the</strong> life <strong>of</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ary people enormously difficult as <strong>the</strong>y became impoverished <strong>in</strong>masses.3. Backward economy: Although social life did not change much dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, no changewas seen <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n economy. Its economy rema<strong>in</strong>ed as backward aftermore than 200 years <strong>of</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g.4. Illiteracy: The major teach<strong>in</strong>g that was practiced <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> was Lamaism which had its roots <strong>in</strong>Tibet. Consequently, all religious books were written <strong>in</strong> Tibetan, thus, any religious services wereconducted <strong>in</strong> Tibetan. For <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> population <strong>the</strong>se religious services and preach<strong>in</strong>g weresometh<strong>in</strong>g very magic and important. Only lamas with high ranks could understand <strong>the</strong>m and shav<strong>in</strong>ars who became pupils <strong>of</strong> religions centers had to memorize all <strong>the</strong> preach<strong>in</strong>g or <strong>in</strong>cantations.Besides shavi centers, <strong>the</strong>re were no o<strong>the</strong>r educational <strong>in</strong>stitutions and <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> populationwas illiterate. Consequently, no journals or newspapers were published <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n.5. Decrease <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> population: For various reasons, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g support by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rulers<strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> religion <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> and tax benefits for religious centers and <strong>the</strong>ir permanentsettlers-lamas, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> lamas was on <strong>in</strong>crease. Therefore, out <strong>of</strong> 100.000 male population70.000 were lamas at <strong>the</strong> onset <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 th century 27 and <strong>Mongolia</strong> was experienc<strong>in</strong>g low rates <strong>in</strong>both marriages and birthrates. At <strong>the</strong> same time, medical services were ra<strong>the</strong>r primitive as it wasma<strong>in</strong>ly based on <strong>in</strong>cantations or prayers. If prayers did not help Tibetan medic<strong>in</strong>e was used. All<strong>the</strong>se factors, as some scholars observe, made <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> population drop significantly.6. Decrease <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> livestock: The country’s ma<strong>in</strong> economy animal husbandry sufferedgreatly dur<strong>in</strong>g this period as well. <strong>Mongolia</strong>ns used <strong>the</strong>ir cattle and <strong>the</strong>ir produces as <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>trad<strong>in</strong>g items and borrowed heavily from Ch<strong>in</strong>ese traders on credit. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>livestock decreased <strong>in</strong> huge numbers.Although <strong>Manchu</strong> years brought such negative consequences how <strong>the</strong>y managed to control this country forsuch a long period <strong>of</strong> time? Firstly, as most scholars observe <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n pr<strong>in</strong>ces’ struggle to be a- 47 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>Buyanlhamdom<strong>in</strong>ant power on Mongol territories made <strong>the</strong>m an easier target for a <strong>Manchu</strong> penetration. To weaken <strong>the</strong>strong determ<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces not to be subjects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule, <strong>the</strong> outsiders used <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ces<strong>the</strong>mselves smartly. As Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts out, “…it was <strong>the</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g nobles (banner pr<strong>in</strong>ces) who wereobjects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest—sometimes affectionate, sometimes implacable, but never impassive. Descendedfrom Ch<strong>in</strong>ggis Khan, <strong>the</strong>y claimed to be <strong>the</strong> lawful and hereditary rulers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n society, and <strong>the</strong>Ch’<strong>in</strong>g did all it could re<strong>in</strong>force this claim. Ultimately, <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule h<strong>in</strong>ged on <strong>the</strong> supportwhich it could draw from <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ces, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutional history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ch’<strong>in</strong>g adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>testifies to how pr<strong>of</strong>oundly <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s understood this.” 28This way <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s used smartly <strong>the</strong> Mongolpr<strong>in</strong>ces’ struggle among <strong>the</strong>mselves by at times support<strong>in</strong>g some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ces, at times putt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m aga<strong>in</strong>stone ano<strong>the</strong>r or suppress<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m when force as needed. As a result, <strong>the</strong>y managed to have all Mongolterritories under <strong>the</strong>ir rule region after region. Secondly, when <strong>Manchu</strong>s became <strong>the</strong> rulers <strong>of</strong> Mongolterritories <strong>the</strong>y divided <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong>to many small units as <strong>the</strong>y were fear<strong>in</strong>g from any possible unification <strong>of</strong>Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces. After <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s divided <strong>the</strong> territories <strong>in</strong>to aimags, khoshuus and o<strong>the</strong>r small units, <strong>the</strong>ygave power to control <strong>the</strong>ir respective territories to <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ces <strong>of</strong> aimag, khoshuus and o<strong>the</strong>r units. Whensuch pr<strong>in</strong>ces or leaders got <strong>the</strong> power to control <strong>the</strong>ir own territories <strong>the</strong>y did not fight aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> regime aswhat <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>of</strong>fered, a territory, a title, a monetary allowance etc. were better <strong>of</strong>fers than to fight with oneano<strong>the</strong>r for a power. For Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces at that time <strong>the</strong> most important th<strong>in</strong>g was to keep <strong>the</strong>ir power <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>irsovereign territories as well as keep <strong>the</strong>ir titles as <strong>the</strong> rulers over <strong>the</strong>ir territories. Thus, <strong>Manchu</strong>s <strong>in</strong>troducedsuch titles as van, beil, beis and gung and respective monetary allowances for <strong>the</strong>se titles. It looked as if <strong>the</strong>yhad not changed <strong>the</strong> Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces' titles and power, but <strong>in</strong> fact <strong>the</strong>y were titles and power authorized by <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong> state. Thirdly, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s exercised favorable policies towards <strong>the</strong> religious centers, <strong>the</strong>ir leadersand religion as a whole. They excluded high-rank<strong>in</strong>g religious leaders, <strong>the</strong>ir monasteries, and those lamaswho permanently stay<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> monasteries from taxes and duties. Of course, such a policy was greeted with apleasure on <strong>the</strong> religious side. The lamas became silent prayers who did not wish to be engaged <strong>in</strong> a fightaga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> regime. This <strong>in</strong> turn made <strong>the</strong> male population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country less productive as most <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> men became permanent settlers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> monasteries and temples. Consequently, <strong>Mongolia</strong> was lack<strong>in</strong>g tohave its permanent army and effective soldiers. F<strong>in</strong>ally, all <strong>the</strong> above-mentioned factors h<strong>in</strong>dered <strong>the</strong>development <strong>of</strong> not only <strong>the</strong> economy but also <strong>the</strong> population growth as well. Both external and <strong>in</strong>ternalfactors contributed negatively for <strong>Mongolia</strong> to have a leader who could have <strong>the</strong> country <strong>in</strong> his hands. More- 48 -
No.36 2006 7 than 200 years <strong>of</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ation exhausted <strong>the</strong> country and dissatisfaction with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> regime wason rise not only <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> but also <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r territories ruled by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s <strong>in</strong> early 20 th century.5. Relations with RussiaAs for external relations, <strong>Mongolia</strong> did not exercise <strong>in</strong>dependent policy under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule. When<strong>Manchu</strong>s were expand<strong>in</strong>g its areas <strong>in</strong>to Mongol territories some <strong>of</strong> Mongol sovereign pr<strong>in</strong>ces did have<strong>in</strong>dependent external relations ma<strong>in</strong>ly with Russia. Dur<strong>in</strong>g Baatar Khuntaij’s rule Western Mongols hadma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed both diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia. As mentioned earlier, dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> earlyyears <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> rule Ikh Khuree’s Department was <strong>in</strong> charge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n affairs with Russia. However,when <strong>Manchu</strong>s were ga<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g more power and territories <strong>the</strong>y prohibited <strong>Mongolia</strong> to have <strong>in</strong>dependentforeign policy with regard to Russia. It wanted to make <strong>Mongolia</strong> as isolated as possible fear<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong>penetration <strong>of</strong> not only Russia but also o<strong>the</strong>r countries’ penetration <strong>in</strong>to this land. As a result, Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>cesbecame responsible only for <strong>the</strong>ir local affairs and had a duty to report to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s. Such a policyconsequently made <strong>Mongolia</strong>n pr<strong>in</strong>ces passive observers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world situation. Although Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>cesreached Russia to ask for <strong>the</strong>ir assistance several times, when <strong>the</strong>y faced a threat to <strong>the</strong>ir existence,particularly early 1600s and 1757. However, <strong>the</strong>y were not provided <strong>the</strong> support <strong>the</strong>y wanted except foroccasional assistances. Russia, perhaps, ei<strong>the</strong>r was not ready to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n affairs. Orperhaps, <strong>the</strong>y sensed <strong>the</strong> situation that a lot more powerful state , <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>g dynasty, was emerg<strong>in</strong>gon <strong>the</strong> land <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> East.Thus, <strong>the</strong> succession struggle <strong>of</strong> Mongol sovereign pr<strong>in</strong>ces made this country rema<strong>in</strong> dis<strong>in</strong>tegrated for a longtime and eventually two <strong>of</strong> its neighbors had been given <strong>the</strong> opportunity to expand <strong>the</strong>ir dom<strong>in</strong>ance over <strong>the</strong><strong>Mongolia</strong>n affairs. Such a vulnerable position was also facilitated with <strong>the</strong> fact <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> lacked a solidleader who could unite all <strong>the</strong> sovereign pr<strong>in</strong>ces and control such a vast territory. The small pr<strong>in</strong>cedomsscattered over a huge territory and <strong>the</strong>ir constant struggle for power opened spaces for outside forces to comeand ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir control.As for relations between <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Russia, <strong>the</strong>y had no permanent character. In <strong>the</strong>ir struggle aga<strong>in</strong>steach o<strong>the</strong>r some <strong>of</strong> Mongol pr<strong>in</strong>ces were seek<strong>in</strong>g Russian help and even sometimes agreed to be under a- 49 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamRussian protectorate. However, such agreements bore a permanent nature and as Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts out“<strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong>variably cooled once <strong>the</strong> threat had passed (apparently only <strong>the</strong> Altyn Khan Ombo Erdene <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> 1630s actually did swear fealty to <strong>the</strong> Tsar)”. 29After Altan Khanate became a part <strong>of</strong> Zasagt Khan <strong>the</strong>irrelations with Russia were dim<strong>in</strong>ished. Torguuds, a part <strong>of</strong> Oirat Mongols, started develop<strong>in</strong>g friendlyrelations with Russia and as stated previously Kho-Urlug pr<strong>in</strong>ce moved to Volga river with his people andestablished <strong>the</strong>re Kalmyk Khanate. When Oirat Mongols became powerful <strong>the</strong>y did develop more frequentrelations with Russia. In particular, dur<strong>in</strong>g Baatar Khuntaij’s rule <strong>the</strong>y had more regular trade relations withRussia. After his death his son Galdan cont<strong>in</strong>ued such relations with Russia. When Mongols were fac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong> threat <strong>the</strong>y sought for Russian help as well. However, Russia was not keen to <strong>in</strong>terfere as ei<strong>the</strong>r it didnot want to worsen its relations with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>s or <strong>the</strong>y were not ready to come to this area as it had o<strong>the</strong>rconcerns on its o<strong>the</strong>r borders.However, <strong>the</strong> situation had changed after <strong>Mongolia</strong> was subjugated to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong> state. Although <strong>Mongolia</strong>did have some <strong>in</strong>dependent foreign policy with regard to Russia, it did not last long. Consequently, Russiaand <strong>Manchu</strong> became <strong>the</strong> ones who to decide <strong>the</strong> fate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. They signed <strong>the</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong> Nerch<strong>in</strong>sk (orNerchuu) <strong>in</strong> 1689 and <strong>the</strong> Khyagta Treaty <strong>in</strong> 1727 where <strong>the</strong>y def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>the</strong>ir respective borders. KhyagtaTreaty, as Baabar observes “as compared with <strong>the</strong> Nerchuu treaty <strong>of</strong> forty years previous, this one provided aclearer framework for <strong>the</strong> relations between <strong>the</strong> two countries and fixed <strong>the</strong>ir jo<strong>in</strong>t border from Central Asiato <strong>the</strong> Pacific shores. Mongols <strong>of</strong> Lake Baikal region were to become Russia’s subjects, and Mongols south <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Selenga those <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a. But <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> Zuungar-lands to <strong>the</strong> west <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Uriankhai territory, known to be<strong>the</strong> geographical center <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Asian cont<strong>in</strong>ent-managed to rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependent.” 30For some time <strong>the</strong>re was not much contact between <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Russia. General Muraviev’s trip to Ch<strong>in</strong>amade <strong>the</strong> Russians to turn <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terests to <strong>Mongolia</strong> aga<strong>in</strong>. Muraviev, a governor general <strong>of</strong> Eastern Siberia,became a historical figure for his role to br<strong>in</strong>g Amur bas<strong>in</strong> region under Russia’s control. Subsequently underAigun and Tients<strong>in</strong> Treaties <strong>of</strong> 1858 and Beij<strong>in</strong>g Treaty <strong>of</strong> 1860 not only Amur region but also PriAmur,Ussuri regions as well as some parts <strong>of</strong> Central Asia became parts <strong>of</strong> Russia’s jurisdiction. General Muravieveven suggested that Russia should also br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Mongolia</strong> under its control by writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 1853 “In case <strong>the</strong><strong>Manchu</strong> Dynasty fell and decided to retreat <strong>in</strong>to its homeland <strong>in</strong> <strong>Manchu</strong>ria, we should act at once to takesteps to prevent a new Ch<strong>in</strong>ese government <strong>in</strong> Pek<strong>in</strong>g from extend<strong>in</strong>g its authority over <strong>Mongolia</strong>, which <strong>in</strong>- 50 -
No.36 2006 7 such an event could be proclaimed our protectorate”. 31Thus, a special Committee (Amur Committee)reviewed Muraviev’s report but suggested to have friendly relations with Mongols. The reason for mak<strong>in</strong>gsuch a decision is quoted <strong>in</strong> Between <strong>the</strong> Hammer and <strong>the</strong> Anvil? Ch<strong>in</strong>ese and Russian Policies <strong>in</strong> Outer<strong>Mongolia</strong>. 1911-1921 as“…<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee any unnecessary participation <strong>in</strong> this matter,and <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>the</strong> plac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two prov<strong>in</strong>ces (<strong>Manchu</strong>ria and <strong>Mongolia</strong>) under our protection, will on<strong>the</strong> contrary arouse <strong>the</strong> opposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European powers and could force <strong>the</strong>m moreover to occupy any part<strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a, Korea for example, and <strong>the</strong>reby put us <strong>in</strong> contact with a neighbor far more dangerous than <strong>the</strong>territory <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a”. 32Though Russia was not enthusiastic <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terfer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Mongolia</strong>n affairs due to various reasons, it diddevelop commercial activities <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. In 1860 Russia opened its consulate <strong>in</strong> Urga 33and <strong>in</strong> about twodecades <strong>the</strong> Russians were given rights for unrestricted trade and movement throughout <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Thesecommercial rights were resulted from a number <strong>of</strong> agreements, which were f<strong>in</strong>ally made <strong>in</strong>to aRusso-Ch<strong>in</strong>ese Treaty <strong>in</strong> 1881. Many Russian firms operated <strong>in</strong> Urga and o<strong>the</strong>r towns along with <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>esefirms. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> Russians were given <strong>the</strong> rights to open consulates <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Mongol towns such as Khovdand Uliastai.Russia could not compete <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese firms which had made a firm base <strong>the</strong>re, although it openedcommercial firms and was engaged <strong>in</strong> commercial activities. Consequently <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Russian firmsstarted to decl<strong>in</strong>e. In 1910 P.P. Riabush<strong>in</strong>skii, a Moscow merchant, organized a conference withrepresentatives <strong>of</strong> Moscow firms and banks <strong>in</strong> Moscow. This conference issued a decision to dispatch a group<strong>of</strong> Russian merchants to <strong>Mongolia</strong> with an aim “to survey travel routes, trade centers, <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> importsand exports between <strong>Mongolia</strong> and Russia, <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong> life and needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n population, and, <strong>in</strong>particular, <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn and northwestern <strong>Mongolia</strong>n towns <strong>of</strong> Urga, Uliastai, and Kobdo.Special focus was to put on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>roads allegedly be<strong>in</strong>g made by Ch<strong>in</strong>ese merchants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> northwest”. 34Upon <strong>the</strong>ir return, <strong>the</strong>y published articles on <strong>the</strong>ir trip with a title The Moscow Trade Expedition to <strong>Mongolia</strong>,which provided a valuable <strong>in</strong>formation on <strong>the</strong> trade situation, <strong>the</strong> statistics on <strong>Mongolia</strong>n imports and exportsas well as on a whole <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>y <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>the</strong>ir concerns over <strong>the</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Russian trade <strong>in</strong><strong>Mongolia</strong> and agreed on <strong>the</strong>ir observation that <strong>the</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese managed to control <strong>the</strong> trade activities <strong>the</strong>re as<strong>the</strong>y were well organized, united and had a good support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> local government. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, <strong>the</strong>- 51 -
<strong>Manchu</strong> <strong>Years</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>BuyanlhamRussian merchants <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> were not organized and coord<strong>in</strong>ated though <strong>the</strong> Russian consulate wasoperat<strong>in</strong>g for about 40 years. Prior to this expedition <strong>the</strong>re had been several o<strong>the</strong>r expedition groups fromRussia, headed N.M. Przhevalsky, G.N. Potan<strong>in</strong>, P.K. Kozlov, G.E. Grumn-Grzhimailo, B.Ya. Vladimirtsovand V.A. Obruchev, which did extensive research <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>.Besides <strong>the</strong> unfavorable position <strong>of</strong> Russian merchants, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational situation did contribute for Russianot to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> full scale <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> affairs <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Although Russia saw <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> a strategicposition <strong>in</strong> its Far East, it did not take an active participation <strong>in</strong> this area unless a real threat to <strong>the</strong> Russiansecurity was seen <strong>the</strong>re. At <strong>the</strong> same time, Russia was aware <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Western nations’ <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> secur<strong>in</strong>g<strong>the</strong>ir commercial rights <strong>in</strong> different strategic regions <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a, thus, <strong>the</strong>y were wait<strong>in</strong>g for an opportunity toclaim <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terests as well. Never<strong>the</strong>less, Russia did make two different agreements, one with Brita<strong>in</strong> andano<strong>the</strong>r with Japan, which directly or <strong>in</strong>directly concerned <strong>the</strong> position <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. In 1899 Russia andBrita<strong>in</strong> signed an agreement where <strong>the</strong>y recognized each o<strong>the</strong>r’s spheres <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluences respectively.Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this Scott-Muraviev agreement, <strong>the</strong> Yangtze was recognized as Brita<strong>in</strong>’s sphere <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluencewhereas <strong>the</strong> territory north <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great Wall, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Mongolia</strong>, as Russia’s sphere <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence.There was ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>terested party, besides Western powers, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> affairs <strong>of</strong> Far East – Japan. Russia andJapan had tried to reach consensus on <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Manchu</strong>ria, several times.Consequently <strong>the</strong>se two powers clashed <strong>in</strong> a Russo-Japanese war which brought a victory to a Japanese side.They f<strong>in</strong>ally reached an agreement with respect to <strong>the</strong>ir spheres <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluences <strong>in</strong> this region, Russiarecogniz<strong>in</strong>g sou<strong>the</strong>rn <strong>Manchu</strong>ria and Korea as Japan’s spheres <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terests while nor<strong>the</strong>rn <strong>Manchu</strong>ria and<strong>Mongolia</strong> were recognized as Russia’s respectively.Thus, <strong>Mongolia</strong> had a subord<strong>in</strong>ate position <strong>in</strong> Russia’s foreign policy regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Far East until <strong>the</strong>beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 th century. The Russians had extensive borderl<strong>in</strong>es with Ch<strong>in</strong>a whom <strong>the</strong>y wanted to havefriendly relations whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>Manchu</strong>s or Ch<strong>in</strong>ese. Ch<strong>in</strong>a was <strong>the</strong> biggest trad<strong>in</strong>g partner to Russia. Inaddition, Russia like o<strong>the</strong>r Western powers were seek<strong>in</strong>g special privileges <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>a, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong><strong>Manchu</strong>ria, thus, <strong>the</strong>y had to be careful <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Western powers’ reaction when deal<strong>in</strong>g with different affairs<strong>the</strong>re.- 52 -
No.36 2006 7 6. References1 A word Mongols is used to refer to all Mongols, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Inner and Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>.2 Batmunkh or Dayan Khan’s life is shown <strong>in</strong> a <strong>Mongolia</strong>n historical film titled “Mandukhai Tsetsen Khatan”.3 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Publish<strong>in</strong>g House, 1999, p. 116.4 Tumen can be understood as small k<strong>in</strong>gdoms.5 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n People’s Republic. Honolulu: University Press <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pacific, 2000, p. 169.6 Clubb, Edmund O. Ch<strong>in</strong>a and Russia: The Great Game. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971, p. 20.7 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n People’s Republic. Honolulu: University Press <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pacific, 2000, p. 170.8 Ethnic group <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>9 Ethnic group <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>10 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n People’s Republic. Honolulu: University Press <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pacific, 2000, p. 174-5.11 Clubb, Edmund O. Ch<strong>in</strong>a and Russia: The “Great Game”. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971, p. 35.12 Ethnic group <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>13 A title for a higher rank<strong>in</strong>g person, similar to lord or pr<strong>in</strong>ce14 Taij – a title <strong>of</strong> nobility held by <strong>the</strong> descendents <strong>of</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>gis Khan and his bro<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Borjig<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e.15 The capital city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong> was called Ikh Khuree <strong>the</strong>n16 Durvud – ethnic group <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>Mongolia</strong>. By <strong>the</strong>n so called Durvud tumen (a small pr<strong>in</strong>cedom) <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> itselfbesides durvud o<strong>the</strong>r ethnic groups such as bayad17 Today’s Kalmykia18 Common people19 work<strong>in</strong>g people20 pupils <strong>of</strong> monasteries and temples21 Uralic and Altaic Series. Volumes 138-139 ( Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g. Between <strong>the</strong> Hammer and <strong>the</strong> Anvil? Ch<strong>in</strong>ese andRussian Policies <strong>in</strong> Outer <strong>Mongolia</strong>. 1911-1921). London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, p. 11.22 Baabar. <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Monsudar, 2004, p. 94.23 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n People’s Republic. Honolulu: University Press <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pacific, 2000, p. 194.24 <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Publish<strong>in</strong>g House, 1999, p. 276.25 tael, ounce (usually <strong>of</strong> silver)26 Ibid., p. 276.27 Baabar. <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Monsudar. 2004, p.99.28 Uralic and Altaic Series. Volumes 138-139 (Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g. Between <strong>the</strong> Hammer and <strong>the</strong> Anvil? Ch<strong>in</strong>ese andRussian Policies <strong>in</strong> Outer <strong>Mongolia</strong>. 1911-1921). London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, p. 10.29 Uralic and Altaic Series. Volumes 138-139 (Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g. Between <strong>the</strong> Hammer and <strong>the</strong> Anvil? Ch<strong>in</strong>ese andRussian Policies <strong>in</strong> Outer <strong>Mongolia</strong>. 1911-1921). London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, p. 17.30 Baabar. <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>. Ulaanbaatar: Monsudar, 2004, p. 87.31 Rupen, Robert. How <strong>Mongolia</strong> is really ruled. A Political <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>n People’s Republic, 1900-1978.Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1979, pp. 6-7.32 Uralic and Altaic Series. Volumes 138-139 (Thomas E. Ew<strong>in</strong>g. Between <strong>the</strong> Hammer and <strong>the</strong> Anvil? Ch<strong>in</strong>ese andRussian Policies <strong>in</strong> Outer <strong>Mongolia</strong>. 1911-1921). London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004, p. 19.33 Urga or Urgee – <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> capital city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>34 Endicott, Elizabeth. Russian Merchants <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mongolia</strong>: The 1910 Moscow Trade Expedition. Published <strong>in</strong>. StephenKotk<strong>in</strong> and Bruce A. Elleman (eds). <strong>Mongolia</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Twentieth Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe, 1999, p. 60.- 53 -