ARROGANGE OF THE DALAI-LAMA. 351 



agree with the Government of India that as a poHcy 

 this appeared to be " both unproductive and in- 

 glorious." ^ What was an urgent necessity was that 

 both China and Tibet should plainly understand that 

 as the suzerain Power was unable to see that treaties 

 were observed, we should be obliged to enforce their 

 observance for ourselves, and that as the Chinese 

 were unable to exercise the requisite authority over 

 their dependency, it was necessary for Great Britain 

 to deal direct with such dependency itself. This 

 principle was recognised by the Government of India 

 and approved by Lord Salisbury at the end of 1899. 



So far the question was confined to Great Britain, 

 China, and Tibet. Lamaist obstruction had been 

 allowed a liberal lease of life, but it could not be 

 expected that so unsatisfactory a state of affairs should 

 be allowed to continue for ever. A crowning, insult 

 was added when the Dalai-Lama returned unopened 

 a letter from the Viceroy of India, and there is no 

 doubt that the Government of India fully realised that 

 the time had come when stronger measures must be 

 resorted to. 



At this juncture a new figure flashed comet-like on 

 to the Tibetan stage, and developments arose which 

 had for immediate effect the raising of the hitherto 

 little - considered state to a position of international 



1 This state of affairs was admirably explained in the despatch already- 

 quoted : " We regard the so-called suzerainty of China over Tibet as a 

 constitutional fiction — a political affectation which has only been maintained 

 because of its convenience to both parties. China is always ready to break 

 down the barriers of ignorance and obstruction, and to open Tibet to the 

 civilising influence of trade ; but her pious wishes are defeated by the 

 short-sighted stupidity of the lamas. In the same way Tibet is only too 

 anxious to meet our advances, but she is prevented from doing so by the 

 despotic veto of the suzerain. This solemn farce has been re-enacted with a 

 frequency that seems never to deprive it of its attractions or its power to 

 impose. " 



