Kehidupan Yakoob Beg/Bab 14

CHAPTER XIV

THE CHINESE FACTOR IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN QUESTION.

The overthrow of the Tungani, and the reconquest of Kashgaria, have not completed the task that lay before Chinese generals and soldiers in Central Asia. Great and remarkable as those triumphs were, the Chinese are not satisfied with them, because there yet remains more work to be done. They have restored to the Emperor Tian Shan Nan Lu, but so long as the Russians hold Kuldja, Tian Shan Pe Lu is only half won back. Moreover, so long as a great military power is domiciled in Kuldja, China's hold on the country west of Aksu must be only on sufferance. As of old, the Chinese so often reconquered Kashgar, when it had shaken off the Chinese rule, from Ili, so might the Russians at their good pleasure play the same part against the Chinese. In short, the Russians remaining in Ili would neutralize all the advantages that China had secured by her recent military success. But, although there is a foundation of well grounded apprehension at the strategical advantages of Russia, at the root of China's demand for the surrender of Kuldja, that is not the only cause, or even the principal one, for the Chinese making it. Of all their Central Asian possessions, Ili was the most cherished, and it was to recover that region more especially that Tso Tsung Tang undertook those arduous campaigns which have so far ended in triumph, and which were designed for, among other purposes, the purpose of giving that Viceroy a prestige and influence [Pg 278] that would enable him to play the rival to Li Hung Chang. Ili was their metropolis in Central Asia, and its fall marked the wide difference that there was between the Tungan-Khoja rising of 1862–63 and all its predecessors. The fall of Ili meant the fall of Chinese power, and Chinese power cannot be held to be completely restored so long as Ili remains in alien hands. On this point the Chinese are very keen.

Russia, on the other hand, hesitates to hand over Ili for various reasons. In the first place, it is not certain that China has permanently reconquered Eastern Turkestan, nor is it clear that the Imperial exchequer will be able to bear a continual strain upon it for Central Asian expenditure. Moreover there is the unknown quantity of the rivalry of Li Hung Chang and Tso Tsung Tang, and whatever influence the latter may have with the army and the ruling caste on account of his Mantchoo blood, the former holds the purse in his hands, and can at any moment paralyse Chinese activity and strength in Central Asia. The Russians also, whatever rash promises they may have given at Pekin—and they certainly did promise to retrocede Kuldja to China, whenever the Chinese should be strong enough to return to Central Asia—formally (teste General Kolpakovsky's proclamation) annexed Kuldja "in perpetuity." In the eyes of the people of Central Asia, that proclamation defines Russia's tenure of Kuldja, and not the vague promise that was uttered in the ears of the authorities at Pekin. Now Russia knows this as well as we do; and she is aware that no strict adherence to her word of honour will induce the people of Western, as well as of Eastern, Turkestan to believe that she retrocedes Kuldja for any other cause than fear of the Chinese. The Khokandians, the Bokhariots, as well as the Kirghiz, the Calmucks, and the Kashgari, will all argue that Russia restores Kuldja not through any desire to fulfil her engagements, but simply because she cannot decline to fulfil them without engaging in a war [Pg 279] with China, and her compliance with the demand would then be construed as an admission of her disinclination to encounter China in the field. In fact, even if Russia had promptly restored Kuldja, she would not have secured the credit she might have claimed for her good faith, and she would have had no guarantee that the Chinese would have rested content with the cession of Ili proper and not gone on to claim, in a moment of military arrogance, the restoration of the Naryn district, which China at a period of weakness had herself ceded to Russia more than twenty years ago. Then, besides these objections to the surrender of Kuldja on political grounds, there are commercial and fiscal reasons why Russia should be loth to restore this province. Not only has it become highly prosperous and thickly populated under Russian rule, but it has also been raised into one of the most fiscally remunerative portions of the Russian possessions in Central Asia, and then there is its admirable frontier in the Tian Shan, which places the future trade with the western parts of China more at its disposal, than it is through the Semipalatinsk and Chuguchak route, and, above all, it effectually dispels all sense of real danger from attack. The Chinese would find that to force the Tian Shan range into Kuldja would be a task almost impossible for them, and they would be compelled to enter the province from the north by Karkaru. By so doing, they would leave the whole of their flank and line of communication exposed to an attack with telling effect both at Manas and in Kashgar, and with a scientific foe such as Russia, no sane Chinaman could dream of attacking Kuldja except in the most overwhelming force. It may be as well to sketch here the history of Russia's rule in Kuldja from 1871 to the present time, before proceeding with the consideration of the questions aroused by the difficulty between Russia and China.

When an independent government had been founded in Kuldja in 1866, a ruler of the name of Abul Oghlan [Pg 280] was placed upon the throne. He appears to have been a Tungan, and he certainly was a truculent and self-confident potentate. He refused to abide by the stipulations of the Treaties of Kuldja and Pekin, and in petty matters as in great, set himself in direct opposition to Russia. For five years he pursued his career undisturbed by exterior influences, and during that period he tolerated the inroads of his subjects into Russian territory, urged the Kirghiz tribes beyond his frontier to revolt, and forbade Russian merchants to enter his dominions. On a small scale, he aped the manners subsequently adopted by Yakoob Beg. But he was only a minor and insignificant despot. His people groaned under his tyranny, and the 75,000 slaves within his dominions were only too anxious to be relieved from their bondage by any deliverer whatsoever. The state of Kuldja, as administered by Abul Oghlan, was pre-eminently one that would fall to pieces at the first rude shock from outside. For five years, or thereabouts, the Russian authorities at Vernoe, Naryn, and in Semiretchinsk put up with his veiled hostility; but when it became evident that his state was on the eve of falling into divers fragments, of which Yakoob Beg would, probably, come in for the lion's share, the Russians, whose patience had become well-nigh exhausted, resolved not to be forestalled in Kuldja, either by the Athalik Ghazi, or the Tungani Confederation. A kind of ultimatum was presented to Kuldja, in which Abul Oghlan was given a last chance of retaining power, if he consented to ratify the terms of the past treaties with China. He does not appear to have distinctly refused to do so, when he was required to enter into this agreement with Russia. But he prevaricated and delayed, until at last the patience of the Muscovite authorities was quite exhausted. They resolved to destroy the government of Abul Oghlan, to annex Kuldja, and to bring their frontier down to the Tian Shan. [Pg 281]

In May, 1871, Major Balitsky crossed the river Borodshudsir, which formed the boundary between the two countries, and, at the head of a small detachment, advanced some distance into the dominions of Abul Oghlan. His force, however, was small, and, after a brief reconnaissance, he retired within Russian territory. Six weeks afterwards the main body under General Kolpakovsky crossed the frontier into Kuldja and marched on the capital. That invading army consisted of only 1,785 men and sixty-five officers. At first the forces of Abul Oghlan offered a brave resistance, but the Russian cannon and rifles carried everything before them; and on the 4th of July the ruler presented himself at the Russian outposts. When taken before General Kolpakovsky, he said, "I trusted to the righteousness of my cause, and to the help of God. Conquered, I submit to the will of the Almighty. If any crime has been committed, punish the sovereign, but spare his innocent subjects." The next day the Russian general entered the capital after a campaign that had only lasted eight or nine days. Protection was promised to all who would lay down their arms, and the army of Abul Oghlan was disbanded. Abul Oghlan was pensioned, and Orel was appointed as his place of residence. Kuldja or "Dzungaria," as it is called in the proclamation, was annexed "in perpetuity," and became the Russian sub-governorship of Priilinsk. There can be no doubt but that the Russian occupation of Kuldja was an unqualified benefit to the inhabitants of that region. The declaration of the abolition of slavery alone released seventy-five thousand human beings from a life of hardship and hopelessness. The return of trade, which had become stagnant, ensured the prosperity and advancement of the active portion of the community, and during the seven years Russia has ruled in Kuldja, the people have steadily progressed in moral and material welfare. The population has during the same period remarkably increased, and the [Pg 282] valleys of the Ili teem with a population at once contented and prosperous. The rule of Russia in Kuldja is the brightest spot in her Central Asian administration. The Chinese in demanding the retrocession of Kuldja labour under the one disadvantage that they come to oust a beneficent rule. This disadvantage is made the greater by the bad name the Chinese have earned in Kashgar and the Tungan country, by the atrocities they are said to have committed. Those who will take the trouble to scan the matter carefully, and to consult the Pekin Gazette, as much as they do the Tashkent, will find that these atrocities are for the most part the creation of panic, and of malicious observers, and in the few cases where Chinese vindictiveness overcame military discipline, as at Manas and Aksu, we have clear evidence that women and children were spared. The Tashkent Gazette has laboured strenuously, and not in vain, to disseminate the report of Chinese atrocities; and one London paper has so far assisted the object of the Russian press in raising a feeling of indignation against China, on account of these reported massacres in Eastern Turkestan, that it has placed translations of these charges before the English reader, and, on the authority of the Tashkent Gazette, has indicted and summarily convicted the Chinese of the grossest acts of inhumanity. We would venture to suggest, that in common fairness to the Chinese this journal should place before its readers the temperately worded and dignified reports that have appeared in the Pekin Gazette of those events upon which the Tashkent Gazette has commented so indignantly.

As we said, the Chinese are fully resolved to regain Ili. They may not be able to induce Russia easily to surrender it, yet they will not despair. In all probability they will fail altogether to re-acquire it by diplomatic means, yet they will not omit to employ all the artifices that are sanctioned by modern diplomacy. There have been rumours that China intended handing [Pg 283] over to Russia a strip of territory in Manchuria, which would give to the Russian harbour of Vladivostock a land communication with the forts on the Amoor. But this rumour had no solid foundation, and the latest intelligence goes to show that China's successes beyond Gobi, instead of making her moderate in the north, have given her confidence sufficient to arouse her into a state of opposition to further encroachments on the part of Russia in that direction. It is now said that Russia demands pecuniary indemnification for the money she has expended in raising Kuldja to its present highly prosperous condition; and at a first glance nothing could seem fairer, nor do we think that the Chinese would have raised objections to the payment of a moderate sum. But the sum demanded by the Russians is far from moderate. The exact amount has not been mentioned, but the Chinese declare that it exceeds the total cost of the campaign in the north-west, and that certainly was not less than two millions sterling. This is, of course, too exorbitant, and is only put forward as a reason for declining to abide by her former agreement, and to give her diplomatists a locus standi in their discussions with the Chinese representatives. A Chinese Embassy has been authorized to proceed to St. Petersburg, and to endeavour to effect an understanding with Russia upon the Kuldja question; but it does not appear to have started, and the real settlement lies in the hands of Tso Tsung Tang and General Kaufmann. The latest report is that the former has demanded afresh the restoration of Kuldja; the Russian reply is awaited with eagerness and some anxiety. In the meanwhile the Chinese have suffered a local reverse of no significance at the hands of a chief of Khoten, and their power does not seem to extend south of Yarkand. But they are hurrying up reinforcements, and 20,000 fresh troops had reached Manas some weeks ago. They have also an extensive recruiting ground amongst the Calmucks, and their position of Chuguchak might be of great [Pg 284] strategical importance. If the Kuldja question give rise to a Russo-Chinese war, the Chinese are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently prepared to task the capacity of an army of 20,000 Russians; and it is quite certain there are not 5,000 in Kuldja at present. But the Kuldja question, despite the prominence it has attained, is only one, if the most important and pressing, of those questions that are raised and suggested by the appearance of the Chinese in Central Asia. More especially is this the case if, as can scarcely be doubted, the Russians refuse to restore Kuldja; yet the Chinese, knowing the strength of their adversary, shall hesitate to attack where they cannot but recognize that the penalties of failure must be immense. In that event the Kuldja question will long remain unsolved, and for a time perhaps it will be forgotten. But the Chinese will not forget, nor will they condone the offence. But whatever may be the interval, and however great the delay, the Kuldja question will continue to remain a most important portion of Central Asian politics, and must, so long as it is unsettled, operate in a manner adverse to the interests of Russia. The Chinese need only maintain their camps at Chuguchak, Karakaru, Manas, Aksu, Ush Turfan and Kashgar, and slowly bring up reinforcements from Kansuh and from the Calmuck country, to render Russia's hold on Kuldja dangerously insecure. In fact, in this matter the Chinese have the game in their own hands, and can play a waiting game; whereas Russia can only hope to profit by precipitation on the part of Tso Tsung Tang. If the Chinese refuse to hold any intercourse with the faithless Russians, and simply content themselves with the declaration that they cannot re-enter into political or commercial relations with them until Kuldja is retroceded, Russia can never rest tranquil either in Kuldja, Naryn, or Khokand. Above all, so long as she is occupied in Western Asia as she is at present, she could never dare to cross the path of China, and enter upon a [Pg 285] war which would rage from Vladivostock and the Amoor to Kuldja and Kashgar. Therefore the settlement of the Kuldja question is not such an easy matter as might be supposed; nor does it find Russia so strong or China so weak as might have been expected. But after all, as we have just said, the Kuldja question is not the only one suggested by the appearance of the Chinese in Eastern Turkestan. There is the far wider one raised by the appearance of the Chinese as a factor in the great Central Asian question. The three great Asiatic Powers have now converged upon a point; what is to be the result?

The only way to be in a position to venture upon a surmise as to the future, is to realize in its full significance the lessons of the past. What have been the mutual relations between England, Russia, and China? We have assumed throughout this volume, and we shall assume here, the irreconcilable hostility of England and Russia, in Asia at all events, veneered over as it is by a lacquer of politeness and civilization. We have only to consider the relations between England and China, and between Russia and China. To take the latter first, they have always been united by ties of friendship and reciprocity in commercial and political rights. Their intercourse has been on the whole singularly harmonious, and while we have been compelled to wage three wars to obtain a standing for our merchants in the seaports, Russia, without being compelled to resort to anything like the same extreme measures, has been able to secure all she, or her merchants, wanted in Middle and Western China. She has made the Amoor a Russian river; she dominates the Yellow and Japanese seas from Vladivostock; and she has acquired in her position among the Khalkas, and in Kuldja, two portals to various weak points in the Chinese Empire. Yet all the time she has been on terms of the closest amity with China. She has several commercial treaties of the most favourable character, [Pg 286] and she has always been on the footing of "the most favoured nation." But she has been more than that; she has been the most favoured nation. But the Chinese have not failed to observe that this good understanding with Russia has, so far as advantages arising from it go, been a very one-sided affair. For all Russia's protestations of friendship and good-will, what advantages has China reaped from those high-flown promises? Whereas, the patriotic Chinaman has but to look to the Amoor, and to the attenuated province of Manchuria, to see what Russian friendship means. He can go farther still. He has only to enquire into the relations Russia has managed to conclude with the Taranath Lama; he has only to hear what the people of Ourga think of Russia's position in the vicinity of that important city; and he cannot fail to form a very clear and decided opinion as to what Russia's friendship signifies. The Chinese have, in the full extent of their northern frontier, a great question in discussion with Russia. So long as China was weak, and consequently unable to resent the patronage of her friend, so long was Russia able to play "my lady bountiful" with a good grace and perfect success. But the moment China became strong, and in a position to resent the condescension of her whilome ally, the Chinese took a different tone, and already we hear of the Chinese assuming a semi-hostile attitude in the Amoor region. But whereas China's apprehension—for it is apprehension that is at the root of her hostility to Russia, at Russia's designs in Manchuria and among the Khalkas is vague at present—her indignation is clear and easily defined at Russia retaining possession of Kuldja after she has demanded its restoration. In short, all her apprehension along the northern frontier, which has slumbered, but never died out, since the Russians seized the Amoor posts during the Crimean War, is reduced to a focus in Central Asia, where Russia appears inclined to throw herself in the path of, or at [Pg 287] least to retard, their victorious career. It is not so much the Kuldja question, which is of local importance, that is of pressing moment, as the rupture between Russia and China, that a crisis in the Issik Kul region will make complete. That rupture has already taken place, and no concession on the part of Russia will restore her good name with the Chinese. She may hand Kuldja over now, or she may keep it by the strong arm if she can; but she has forfeited all claim to consideration by the Chinese, through delaying to accede to that which those people consider in every sense their right and due. Had Russia at once said to China, "We will abandon Kuldja, and only require you to guarantee the safety of the population," there would have been not only the preservation of the good understanding between the countries, but there might have been, for fresh purposes, a Russo-Chinese alliance in Central Asia. That alliance must have been fraught with danger to this country, and for reasons that will best be described under the head of Anglo-Chinese relations.

But the Russian authorities failed to grasp the situation in its full extent. They treated the Kuldja question as a mere local affair, and they trifled with the Chinese as if the latter had no very strong interest in the matter. They altogether ignored the terrible earnestness of the Chinese character, and they treated the demands of Tso Tsung Tang in a spirit of levity that must have roused the ire of that general. Their policy, regarded from any point of view, was shallow and unwise, but, bearing in mind the past tact and diplomatic skill shown by Russia in her dealings with China, it must appear more shallow and foolish. Of course this Kuldja question differs from all previous questions in the essential point of all, that here for the first time Russia had to go back instead of advancing, as always had been the case heretofore. The Russian authorities simply regarded the matter from the point of view of [Pg 288] what effect it would have upon the peoples of Central Asia. They persuaded themselves that to hand over Kuldja would be to give an impetus to every hostile element in Western Turkestan, as well as to lower their prestige generally throughout Asia. As a leading Russian paper expressed it, "the retrocession of Kuldja would be an act of political suicide, for not only would it raise the prestige of China to a higher point than ever before, but it would also undermine our position in Eastern Asia, by giving the Chinese a strong military position within our natural frontier. For these reasons Kuldja cannot be restored." That paragraph sums up the arguments the Russians will employ in defence of their continuing to retain possession of Kuldja. They add something to their effect in the popular mind by diatribes against the Chinese for rumoured barbarities, by drawing comparisons, flattering to themselves and to their administrative capacity, between the present condition of Kuldja, and what it would become under a restored Chinese rule. In depicting what this would be, they entirely ignore the prosperous condition of Kuldja before the Tungan revolt, and they appear to assume that the anarchy existing there, when they entered it in 1871, was due to the Chinese, instead of being caused by the ingratitude and fickleness of its own people. And they shut their eyes to the great benefits China conferred upon Central Asia during the century that she was paramount therein. They would like us, and every other observer of the crisis, to do the same. That is impossible, for the teaching of history is clear, and points to a diametrically opposite conclusion. We do not dispute the beneficence of Russia's government of Kuldja. We freely admit it. That is no reason for maligning the Chinese, and asserting that they are utter barbarians; nor is it a reason, in the eyes of Chinamen, for a refusal to restore Kuldja. By refusing to entertain the overtures of Tso Tsung Tang, which were made, there is reason to believe, before the [Pg 289] attack on Yakoob Beg, the Russians huffed the Chinese; and by procrastinating ever since, when questioned upon the subject, they have still further displeased them. The Russians are aware of this, and feel convinced that, no matter how obliging they might be disposed to be, the Chinese will now no longer appreciate their moderation. If we admit this, as can scarcely be gainsaid, what becomes of the Kuldja question, and of its peaceful solution that many claim to see? How can it be peacefully solved, if Russia will not accede to the terms from which China is resolved not to budge? Surely not by a fresh commotion on the part of the Mussulman population, which some persons have pretended to forecast by magnifying a petty success that has been obtained by the insignificant ruler of Khoten over a Chinese detachment. Surely not by such trivial circumstances as the hostility of an outlying dependency, will China be either expelled from Kashgar, or induced to forego her claims on Kuldja. The success of the Khoten chief is but a minor incident in the campaign, and for that district and its people it must be pronounced a great misfortune. The Chinese will exact a terrible revenge. The Kuldja question will not be solved by such means, English readers can feel assured; and the hostility of Russia and China towards each other will become more pronounced every day. Already petty disturbances are reported to have taken place along the border. Russian merchants have been molested by parties of brigands, among whom the assailed assert there were Chinese soldiers; and no satisfaction could be obtained from their generals. Representations have been made to Tso Tsung Tang upon the subject, and his reply has not been very amicable. Russian caravans, which were always welcome during the progress of the war at Manas, Karakaru, and Urumtsi, are now no longer greeted with the same cordiality, and the Chinese are evincing an intention to close their frontier to Russians. Few caravans, the Tashkent Gazette informs us, now care [Pg 290] to leave Kuldja for the territory occupied by the Chinese army; and slowly, but none the less surely, is the old alliance between Russia and China departing to join the things that were, but are not. But, although so much is clear, it is almost impossible to predicate the future course of the Kuldja question. It is not probable that Tso Tsung Tang will openly attack the Russians, yet his hand may be forced by the home authorities, and he may be left no alternative between that and the abandonment of his enterprise. It must be always remembered that Russia's best weapon is intrigue at Pekin, and a skilful envoy might so far manipulate the rivalry between Tso and Li Hung Chang as to induce the latter to paralyze the ambition of the former by withholding supplies and reinforcements from the army of Central Asia. So unpatriotic a course would, we believe, be hateful to Li Hung Chang, and it, certainly, would be attended with great danger, sure to recoil upon his guilty head, if for a personal rivalry he debased himself so far as to become the tool of his country's foe. But yet it is in vain to deny that there is danger to the preservation of China's most cherished interests in the rivalry of some of her chief statesmen. The Kuldja question, which scarcely admits of peaceful solution in Central Asia, might be solved in the palace at Pekin more easily and more effectually than by a campaign on a large scale in Jungaria and Turkestan; and there is a possibility that Russia may by this means seek to nullify the danger from Tso Tsung Tang, and to stultify the recent Chinese successes. It is very doubtful whether they would succeed, for Chinese opinion runs high upon the topic, and the Mantchoo caste is united in its support of its member Tso Tsung Tang. Even if they did, it would only be shelving the Kuldja question, for so long as the Chinese remain in Kashgaria, and at Manas and Karakaru, they must regard the presence of Russia in Kuldja as a slight to themselves, as well as a menace to their line of communications. [Pg 291]

But every probability is against their succeeding. Li Hung Chang's position is not so secure that he can dare to put himself in face of those who champion a national cause, as is the re-absorption of Chinese Turkestan. The return of Tso Tsung Tang with his veterans would be the least danger that the adoption of an unpatriotic policy would entail. If this home danger, then, does not arise, the Kuldja question will be settled between Tso and the Russian authorities in Khokand and Kuldja. The result of that discussion cannot be doubtful. The advocates on either side are soldiers, each equally confident in their own abilities and power, and each flushed by a long tide of success. They will come to the discussion of the question with heated blood and excited nerves; reason will not be the presiding goddess at the council board. There will be accusations and recriminations bandied from one side to the other. If such be the case, the Kuldja question will not be long in discussion, and before the close of the present year perhaps, but more probably early next spring, there will be war between Russia and China along the Tian Shan range. Even if Tso is content to permit his arguments to be clothed in diplomatic language, there will be no solution of the difficulty, so long as Russia remains where she is; and consequently the difference will be as great between Russia and China as if there were open hostilities between the countries. And this, after all, is the main point, for the destruction of all friendly sentiment between Russia and China means the addition of another element to "the great game in Central Asia," and that element, as an adverse one to Russia, is a beneficial circumstance for this country. The difference over the Kuldja question magnifies the previously existing discordant points between the countries, and irretrievably wrecks whatever prospect there once was of Russia and China pursuing an identical policy towards Baroghil and Cashmere. We have now to consider the past relations between England and China, in order that [Pg 292] we may be in a position to appreciate the full significance of China's reappearance in Central Asia, and also what is to be the probable outcome of the gradual approximation of the three Great Powers, and the slow extinction of the once innumerable petty states of Asia.

What, then, have been the mutual relations between England and China in the past? There is no necessity to enter into the question of the footing we are on along the sea-coast, for that is really beside the question; nor need we recapitulate the wars which we have at various times been compelled to wage in Eastern China. The result of those wars, those treaties, and that constant inter-communication has been, that Englishmen have secured a foothold in many of the principal cities, and that English trade is supreme there. But the relations along the land frontier are quite the opposite of those obtained on the sea-board, and they are influenced by entirely different considerations. During the last century, and for a considerable portion of the present, we were not, strictly speaking, neighbours of the Chinese; for between the two empires there intervened a belt of semi-independent states, who nominally owned allegiance to China. Some of these were Nepaul, Sikhim, Bhutan and Birmà, with its dependency of Assam. It was in the days of Lord Cornwallis that we first realized the significance of the fact that Chinese prestige had penetrated south of the Himalaya. The Ghoorka rulers of Nepaul had, on several occasions, molested the peaceable Tibetans, and at last had grown so bold, that on one expedition they advanced as far as Lhasa, which they plundered. At that moment the aged Keen-Lung was meditating the retirement from public life, which a few years afterwards, like the Asiatic Charles the Fifth that he was, he adopted; but, on the news of this insult to his authority, his warlike spirit fired up, and he vowed that the marauders of Khatmandoo should dearly pay for their audacity. A large army, of the reputed strength [Pg 293] of 70,000 men, was collected, and the Chinese generals advanced by the Kirong Pass upon the Nepaulese capital. A desperate battle was fought along this elevated road, resulting in victory to the Chinese. Several other encounters took place with the same result, and the Ghoorkas were compelled to sue for terms. The Chinese showed no disposition to stay their advance, until Lord Cornwallis mediated between the foes, and peace ensued. Nepaul acknowledged its suzerainty to China, and agreed to send tribute every five years to Pekin. For more than half a century this was regularly sent, but during the last thirty years it has been either discontinued, or has grown irregular. But for us the main point is, after all, that the Chinese, although yielding to the remonstrance of Lord Cornwallis, really did so with a bad grace. We had stood between them and their prey.

But this was not the full extent of the mistake we had actually committed. We had annoyed the Chinese; but we had absolutely offended the people and the ruling Lamas of Tibet. Warren Hastings had sent two missions—one under Mr. George Bogle, the other under Captain Turner—to the Teshu Lama, and by means of these embassies had broken ground very happily in Tibet. He had also conferred an obligation upon him by dealing leniently with the intractable Bhutanese or Bhuteas; and he had followed up that sense of obligation by the despatch of two successful missions. When Lord Cornwallis threw the ægis of British protection over Nepaul, it is true that we had no diplomatic relationship with Tibet, but we were on a good footing with the people generally, having a native representative at Lhasa named Purungir Gosain, and being in high repute at Shigatze, the chief city of the southern portion of Tibet. The Tibetans, the instant the Ghoorkas raided their country, notified the same to our government, and requested its good offices to prevent the Ghoorkas invading their country. The Chinese, their lawful protectors, [Pg 294] were so far away that much damage could be inflicted upon them before the Chinese could have time to despatch a vindicating army; therefore they appealed to their friends the English, whom they had always found so just, for assistance in their extremity. Their appeal was evidently made with the impression that it would be granted. Therefore it was with double regret they saw the English remain indifferent while the Ghoorkas were pressing on against Lhasa, and ravaging the fertile districts watered by the Sanpu. But their regret and surprise at our government remaining indifferent were as nothing compared with their indignation when they learnt that we were actually interfering on behalf of the marauding Ghoorkas. We saved the Ghoorkas from condign chastisement, and we of course prevented the establishment of a Chinese garrison at Khatmandoo, which we could whenever we chose have easily expelled; but we offended the Tibetans and the Chinese, and induced them to unite in a policy of hostility against ourselves. After that war (1792) the Himalayan passes were closed against us, and the Chinese block-houses have effectually barred the way to Tibet and Northern Asia ever since. Mr. Thomas Manning, one of the most intrepid and highly gifted of English travellers, penetrated into Tibet in 1812, and resided there some time. But that is the only instance in which an English traveller overcame Bhutea and Ghoorka indifference and Chinese hostility. Tibet remains a sealed book, and, despite treaty rights to enter it, no Englishman goes thither, although the attraction is great, and the prize to be secured far from vague or trivial. The assumed reason is the covert hostility of the Chinese.

If we turn farther to the east, to Assam—which we have absorbed—to Birmà, and even to Siam, we find the same causes in operation. We recognized in Yunnan the Panthay Sultan of Talifoo; we have always striven to treat the kings of Birmà and Siam as independent [Pg 295] princes, whereas they are only Chinese vassals; and we are believed to have carried on intrigues with the Shans and other tribes beyond the Assamese frontier. These steps may be prudent or they may not for other reasons; but they certainly are imprudent for the reason that they offend the Chinese. As a policy intended to conciliate the Chinese, our frontier policy on the north and the east has been the worst possible, and a tissue of blunders from beginning to end; and the result is that for the last half-century we have lived on the very worst terms with the Chinese. We should have conciliated them, but we aroused instead all their latent suspicion and dislike. We should have become friendly neighbours, and, on the contrary, we are neighbours who, if not decidedly hostile to each other, shun each other's presence. And the real base of our sentiment towards the Chinese is to be seen in the fact that one of the first articles in the creed of Indian state policy is "to keep China as far off as possible." That precept, which may have been very useful, has served its turn, and it is time that our Indo-Chinese policy should be set upon a new basis. With China once more supreme upon our whole northern frontier, and with her presenting ultimatums at Bangkok, and coercing the ruler of Mandalay as she esteems fit, it is high time for us, apart from the Central Asian question altogether, to set our house in order with the Chinese. The mistakes we made in championing the Ghoorkas, in acknowledging the Panthays, and in a general policy of indifference to Chinese opinion, have all tended to bring about the present deadlock in our relations with China. Our acknowledgment of the Athalik Ghazi cannot have conduced to the creation of any very friendly sentiment among the Chinese towards us, and, therefore, at the present moment we must assume that the state of feeling existing among the Chinese in Tibet and Yunnan towards us exists in Kashgaria also; and that feeling is a veiled hostility. Therefore, while the Chinese are beginning [Pg 296] to regard Russia with the hostile feelings that once were reserved for England, they have by no means altered their old sentiments towards us. We have done nothing whatever to induce them to do so. We have not helped them in any way to regain Kashgar, and on the whole English opinion may be said to have been more adverse to, than in favour of, their claims. They have found in the arsenals of Kashgar and Yarkand many proofs of England's alliance with, and friendship for, Yakoob Beg; and, on the other hand, they certainly owe much to the assistance of Russian merchants, and the forbearance of the Russian government. Nor should we for an instant delude ourselves with the fallacy that the Chinese will look to us for aid against Russia, as Yakoob Beg did. They have conquered Eastern Turkestan without us—in fact, despite of our moral opposition; and they will retain it if they can by their own right arms. It will not enter their head for an instant to play the old game of Yakoob Beg, of setting England off against Russia. But, although they will play a perfectly independent game, it by no means follows that they will be hostile to this country, if by some fortunate stroke of diplomacy we could bring home to their minds the fact that England is glad at the result of the war in Central Asia, however much she may have failed during its progress to recognize which was the rightful cause. But what is that fortunate stroke of diplomacy to be? and how is it to be brought to pass? To each of these questions it would be rash to give any confident reply. In dealing with the Chinese we are not only treating with a people whom we very imperfectly understand, but also with a government the secret springs of whose policy we neither know nor appreciate. The action we might therefore adopt, founded though it should be on the experience of some Englishman versed in the mysteries of China, might fail to accomplish what it seemed calculated to secure. It might be crowned with success, it might be condemned with failure. Of course the first [Pg 297] thing to decide is, how are we to take official cognizance of China's reconquest of Kashgaria, and how are we to bring home to the minds of Tso Tsung Tang and his lieutenants the knowledge that we have repented of our shortsighted policy towards Yakoob Beg, and are willing to atone for it in so far as we are able by an ample recognition of the change in affairs north of the Karakoram?

The Che-foo Convention gave us the right to send an embassy to Tibet, on the condition that it should be acted upon within a given space. We did not avail ourselves of that concession, and the Chinese, we are informed, consider that the right has lapsed. We may have been wise or we may have been foolish—in my opinion we have been foolish—in declining to enforce the only real concession China made, in reparation for the murder of Mr. Margary. Does this concession, which we never made use of, entitle us to send a mission to the Chinese in Kashgar? Acting upon this precedent, are we justified in supposing that the Chinese would hold out a hand of friendship to an English envoy coming from Leh to Yarkand? It is much to be feared that it would not. At the present moment, too, the country must be in such a disturbed state, that the Chinese would have a ready excuse if any accident befel our envoy. Moreover, at the present moment an envoy would have no definite object before him. A few years hence, when the Chinese rule shall be completely restored throughout Eastern Turkestan, it may be reasonable to expect a revival of trade in this direction; but at present it would be premature to agitate for it. Nor would a simple embassy of congratulation look well. We have too recently befriended the Athalik Ghazi to make our congratulations to his conqueror anything but a mockery. The Chinese would be puffed up with vanity, and think that we were only worshipping their rising sun. Whatever action we do take in Central Asia, to effect an understanding with the [Pg 298] Chinese, we must be very careful that it has been well considered, and that it is as cautious as it must be clearly defined. Any mistake would be simply fatal to the preservation of good relations with China. Therefore, we must do nothing. Quieta non movere must be our motto, and we must only look forward to some auspicious occasion when it may be possible to enter into cordial relations with China.

But, although our hands are tied in Central Asia, they are not fettered at Pekin, and we certainly should congratulate, if we have not done so already, the Chinese on their remarkable successes in the Tian Shan regions. That step might be pregnant with beneficent results, and our desire to be on good terms with our new, yet our old, neighbour might be met in a cordial manner by the Chinese. The Chinese will not stoop to propitiate us in order to preserve their rule in Eastern Turkestan; but it is against common sense to suppose that they will be eager to embroil themselves with us at the same moment that they are quarrelling with the Russians. The Kuldja question must throw China into our alliance, if we are not precipitate, and do not offer her any slight by meddling with this semi-independent chief of Khoten, who is said to have overthrown a Chinese detachment. And, in negotiating with the rulers of Kashgaria, we must remember that commercial advantages are all very well, but that political are infinitely more important. It has been tersely said that we patronized Yakoob Beg in order to make a market for Kangra tea; but the very trivial advantages we secured in a commercial sense were far more than counterbalanced by the political disadvantages we derived from a recognition of the Athalik Ghazi. In dealing with the Chinese we must not set before us, as our guiding star, the privilege of supplying the good people of Kashgar and Yarkand with tea and other necessaries. What we aspire to is to be on terms of amity with China, as a power in Central Asia, which will possess [Pg 299] everything it desires when Ili has been restored, and which most accordingly be inclined to resent with us the undue aggrandizement of Russia. These are the future advantages that may accrue from an understanding between England and China. But at the present juncture there are others similar in kind, but immediate in effect. The Afghan question, which now clamours for solution, and which will scarcely pass through this crisis without finding our hold on Cabul made more assured, is in many respects connected with the Kuldja.

In each case the ambition of Russia is the motive power, and in each she seeks to play her game with as little risk, and as much gain, as possible. In neither will she fight, if she can avoid the necessity, yet in each there is a point beyond which her honour and her interests alike refuse to permit her to remain concealed and neutral. The solution of the two questions is being worked out simultaneously, and the progress of the Afghan question will at least very seriously affect the later stages of the Kuldja. If Russia has to fight to defend Shere Ali, then we may be sure that Tso Tsung Tang's legions will not remain inactive, and that General Kolpakovsky will either have to beat a retreat to Vernoe, or engage in a war out of which, on his own resources alone, it will be impossible for him to issue victorious. If Russia interfere openly in defence of Shere Ali, Kuldja must be restored to the Chinese, otherwise Russia's flank would be exposed to a crushing blow, which the Chinese would not be slow to take advantage of. Present events on the Ili and on the Cabul have, therefore, this much in common, that they both aim, directly or indirectly, at the fabric of Russian supremacy in Central Asia. The occupation of Afghanistan by England, or even a partial occupation of it as is very probable, would seriously weaken Russian prestige in Western Turkestan. A Chinese occupation of Kuldja would undermine her position in Vernoe and Naryn and [Pg 300] among the Kirghiz. Admitting these, is it not natural to suppose that in each case Russia will fight, or that, even if she does not fight in each case, she will fight in the one that she may deem of the most importance? But we need not pursue the subject farther. The Chinese are face to face with Russia in the heart of Central Asia, just as a few short months ago they were opposed to Yakoob Beg and the power of the Tungani.

Their army is drawn up in hostile array; it is each day becoming more numerous and more perfectly prepared. Its generals are the same who have led it to constant victory; its main body is the veterans of three campaigns. The Chinese are persuaded, and it is impossible to say not justly persuaded, of the righteousness of their cause. The Russians can have no equal confidence either in their strength, or in their moral position. They are not exactly championing a bad cause, or a lost one, but, in comparison to the Chinese, they have no legal position. It remains to be seen whether by force of arms, or by diplomatic superiority, they can make up for the flaw in their tenure of Kuldja. Farther on, in the vista of the events yet to come, there looms the prospect of an Anglo-Chinese alliance, that must be most beneficial to the peoples of Asia generally. But, before it will be possible for Englishmen to count upon the presence of the Chinese as a favourable "factor in the Central Asian question," our relations with China must be placed upon a firmer and a more friendly basis than any which has yet existed. We have it in our power to do this, and the ever-widening breach between Russia and China simplifies our task in no slight degree. The day will come when Russia will discover that the Kuldja question was no trivial matter at all, and that to it can be traced many important events in Central Asia. England may also recognize in it one of the most useful circumstances that have ever operated in her favour in her long rivalry with Russia. At the very crisis of our border history, when we are on the eve of [Pg 301] dealing out well merited chastisement to an Ameer of Cabul, Russia finds herself weakened by being compelled to discuss a question with China, when her attention is required elsewhere. She will not yield what the Chinese demand, yet she dare not refuse; and the latter will simply bide their time until she is hampered elsewhere. It is no rash prophecy to say that China will be reinstalled, either by peaceful means or by force, in Kuldja before the close of next year, probably long before. An alliance between any two of the three great Asiatic Powers must then be conclusive in all Central Asian matters, and, before that alliance, the third will have the prudence to submit. It behoves us to learn our lesson, when that day comes, thoroughly and in good time.