The Fragile Balance of Power in 17th-Century Tibet

During the late Ming and early Qing periods, Tibet maintained a complex relationship with China’s central government—nominally subordinate but largely autonomous in practice. This delicate arrangement faced upheaval when the Dzungar Mongols displaced the Khoshut tribe from their homeland, pushing them toward Qinghai. The Khoshut subsequently developed close ties with Tibet, which was then embroiled in sectarian conflicts among Buddhist schools.

The Fifth Dalai Lama, seeking to consolidate power, made a strategic alliance with Güshi Khan of the Khoshut in 1642. This partnership created a dual governance system: while the Dalai Lama held spiritual authority and nominal civil control, real military power rested with the Khoshut khans. A regent appointed by the Dalai Lama managed daily administration, creating an unstable power-sharing arrangement that would shape Tibet’s political landscape for decades.

The Great Game of Tibetan Politics

The death of the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1682 triggered a dangerous power vacuum. His ambitious regent, Sangye Gyatso, conspired with the Dzungar leader Galdan to eliminate the Khoshut ruler—Güshi Khan’s successor—while concealing the Dalai Lama’s death for fifteen years. This deception allowed Sangye Gyatso to rule as de facto sovereign, delaying the search for the Sixth Dalai Lama to maintain his grip on power.

When Galdan died in 1697, the Khoshut leader Lhazang Khan seized his opportunity. Marching from Qinghai, he executed Sangye Gyatso and restored Khoshut dominance over Tibet. However, this victory proved short-lived as a new Dzungar warlord, Tsewang Rabtan, set his sights on Tibet—the spiritual heartland of Mongolian Buddhism.

The Dzungar Invasion: A Military Masterstroke

In 1717, Tsewang Rabtan launched one of history’s most audacious military campaigns. His general Tsering Dondub led 6,000 troops across the treacherous Taklamakan Desert, scaled the 5,000-meter-high Kunlun Mountains, and traversed the uninhabited Changtang Plateau—a route so improbable that Lhazang Khan’s forces were caught completely unprepared. The Dzungar capture of Lhasa marked a pivotal moment in Central Asian history.

This invasion triggered direct Qing intervention. Emperor Kangxi dispatched a 13,000-strong army via the traditional Mongolian route in 1718, but the expedition ended catastrophically at Nagqu. Isolated in unfamiliar terrain with severed supply lines, the entire Qing force perished—their frozen corpses reportedly left standing in formation, a grim testament to the challenges of high-altitude warfare.

The Qing Counteroffensive and Lasting Reforms

Kangxi learned from this disaster. His 1720 campaign employed a two-pronged strategy: General Yue Zhongqi advanced from Sichuan along the Sichuan-Tibet route while General Yanxin marched from Qinghai. Facing Tibetan resistance and unable to consolidate their rule, the Dzungars were crushed between these converging forces.

The Qing victory brought transformative changes:
– Establishment of resident ambans (imperial commissioners) with veto power over major decisions
– Implementation of the Golden Urn system to regulate Dalai Lama succession
– Elevation of the Panchen Lama as a counterbalance to Dalai Lama’s authority
– Formal demarcation of administrative regions between secular and religious authorities

The Final Destruction of the Dzungar Khanate

Tibet’s pacification marked only one phase in the century-long Qing struggle against the Dzungars. Emperor Qianlong’s brutal 1755-1757 campaigns culminated in near-total annihilation of the Dzungar people—a genocide that erased one of Central Asia’s most formidable empires, leaving only the geographical name “Dzungaria” as a haunting reminder.

Legacy: The Foundations of Modern Tibet

The early 18th-century conflicts established administrative frameworks that endure today. By balancing religious authority, creating checks on local power, and integrating Tibet into the imperial bureaucracy, the Qing created a model of governance that transformed Tibet from a distant theocracy into a territory under measurable central control—a geopolitical reality that continues to shape discussions about Tibetan autonomy in the modern era.