Why Did Tibet and Ladakh Clash in the 17th Century? Rethinking the Background to the ‘Mongol War’ in Ngari (1679-1684)

by Nawang Jinpa

In July 1679, the Ganden Phodrang (dGa’ ldan pho brang) government in Central Tibet launched a war against Ladakh. The operation was led by Ganden Tsewang (dGa’ ldan tshe dbang, 1644-1697), a Mongol prince, grandson of the Gushri Khan (1582-1655) who had conquered Eastern and Central Tibet some decades earlier through a series of military campaigns on behalf of the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-1682). After a four-year military stalemate, Ladakh eventually succeeded in pushing back the Tibetan/Mongol armies with the help of Mughal forces from Kashmir. The war proved to be a significant event in the history of Ladakh in that it led to the loss of several of its former territories including Ruthok, Guge and Puhrang of today’s Western Tibet. From 1684 onwards, these were controlled by Lhasa. Until now, it has appeared that the most detailed

historical accounts of the events leading up to the ‘Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War’ were written by the Tibetan protagonists (e.g. the Fifth Dalai Lama’s writings, in particular his autobiography, and the Vaūrya serpo, composed in 1698 by his regent Sanggye Gyatso (Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1653-1705), or else by their later heirs and successors (e.g. the biography of the king Pho lha nas, mi dbang rtog brjod, written in 1733 by Tshe ring dbang rgyal). The main Ladakhi documentary source consists of only a few words in the Ladakh

royal chronicles (La dvags rgyal rabs, in Francke 1926: 115). They state that Ladakh’s king, whose “spiritual advisor (dbu lha, sic for dbu bla?) was the Bhutanese Drukpa (’Brug pa), had taken the side of Bhutan”, in a dispute with Tibet. This caused what is presented as a preventive Tibetan attack onto Ladakh. Unfortunately, as with the rest of these chronicles, it is impossible to know when, by whom, and for what purpose that passage was written.2 Modern Tibetan historians, including the most authoritative ones, largely repeat the old Tibetan version produced after the war without question. So does Shakabpa (1967, 1976, 1984) and Dungkar blo bzang phrin las (2004)— as well as Ngari experts such as Karma Gyaltsen (1996), Tsering Gyalpo (2006)

and the anonymous author of the Dar chen guidebook (2002). For example, Shakabpa (1984: 122) explains that “The Ladakhi ruler had been harassing Gelug (dGe lugs) monasteries” and all authors imply that in Ladakh, “Drukpa sectarianism” prevailed (e.g. ’brug pa bka’rgyud kyi phyogs su langs khul, Tsering Gyalpo 2006: 58). While Bhutan is rarely mentioned in the Tibetan accounts (for reasons that will become clearer later), the kings and ministers of Ladakh are consistently depicted as “madly arrogant” (smyo ham je cher, Tsering Gyalpo 2006: 58), greedy, evil, and even “enraged anti-Buddhist” (Anon. 2002: 6). Ladakh had turned into such an “errant perversion” that it needed to be “tamed” by the

Tibetan/Mongol armies.3 Following a similar line, the version of the war found in modern popular Chinese media presents 17th century Ladakh as an Islamic aggressor (e.g. Xiong Lei 2003). Clearly, the voices of the Ladakhis and their prestigious ‘Dharma Kings’ are lacking, as is wider contextualization. By and large echoing the Tibetan sources, modern international historians have repeated the same general narrative (Ahmad 1968; Petech 1977: 70-80). The war is presented as an intra-religious conflict, with Ladakh embodying

‘Drukpa sectarianism’. Citing the La dvags rgyal rabs, Petech (1977: 71) remarks that Ladakh made an “inept attempt at interference” in a Tibetan conflict with Bhutan. Schuh (1983 a, b) highlights the Ladakhi kings’ connections with the Drukpa lineage dating back to the 16th century, and implies that this is part of the background to the war. More recently, Emmer (2007) has tentatively explored economic motives for the attack, and Halkias (2009) likewise stressed the importance of trade in his investigation of the Tibet-Bashahr (Kinnaur) treaty of 1679. In their works, trade nevertheless remains a secondary issue: the war is still primarily presented as religiously motivated, and Ladakh as a sectarian kingdom. In this paper I take a closer look at the origins of the war, attempting to use a broader range of sources, and drawing on my research on the Drukpa heritage in Ladakh. I address here five main themes:

• the situation in Ladakh and the wider western Himalayan region of Ngari before the war, and the claims that its rulers were sectarian; • developments in Central Tibet leading up to the war, and the Ganden Phodrang’s attempts to establish Gelug hegemony; • the Bhutan question and the ‘threat’ that the Drukpa overall posed to the Ganden Phodrang; • possible economic motives for the war; and • the aftermath of the war.

By addressing these themes, I hope to show that the generally accepted reasons for the attack are inadequate, and to present a more nuanced view of the complex political and religious powerplay that contributed to the conflict. In particular, I present a more balanced view of the Ladakhi monarchy and its relationship with the various religious schools. Differing further with earlier Western literature, but in accordance with Ladakhi tradition, I refer to the conflict as the ‘Mongol War’ (sog po’i dmag), not as the Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal war.

Ladakhi Regional Power Before the 1679 attack, Ladakh was the dominant power in the regions forming the ‘Threefold Dominion’ or Ngari Korsum (mNga’ ris skor gsum), a vast territory covering the countries of Ladakh, Guge and Puhrang, as well as secondary regions including Ruthok, Zangskar, Lahaul, Spiti, Kinnaur (these last four today form part of the Indian union) and Jumla, Dolpo and Mustang (in present-day north-western Nepal). That dominion had been founded in the early tenth century by descendants of the former Yarlung dynasty of the Tibetan Empire. It is known for its prominent role in the ‘Second Diffusion’ of Buddhism on the Tibetan plateau, which tradition attributes to ‘Dharma kings’ such as Lha Lama Yeshe Od (959-1040) and religious masters such as Rinchen Zangpo (958-1055) and Atiśa Dīpakāra (982-1054). About the year 950, Ngari Korsum was divided between three royal heirs: one of them took Ladakh, and the others Guge and Puhrang. The ‘Threefold Dominion’ was born. There was recurring fragmentation between the tenth

and the 16th centuries but Ngari Korsum retained a broad cultural unity and was also re-united politically, partially or entirely, a number of times under various powers, often based in Ladakh. Thus, the whole area again came under Ladakhi supremacy in the late 16th century during the days of King Tsewang Namgyal (r. c. 1575-1595). Ladakh’s regional dominance temporarily declined under his successor Jamyang Namgyal (r. c. 1595-1616) as a result of harsh pressures from Muslim rulers on the western borders of Ladakh. Nonetheless, during his reign, the ruler of Guge-Puhrang was still not titled ‘king’ (rgyal po) but only ‘chief lord’ (jo bo bdag po). The extent to which Ladakh remained the main regional power is unclear but in 1630, Jamyang Namgyal’s son Sengge Namgyal reaffirmed militarily Ladakhi authority over Guge, Ruthok and Puhrang. By 1642, all the territories

that had formed Ngari Korsum in the tenth century were his vassals. This immense dominion was inherited by his sons and grandsons, before being broken up by the Tibetan/Mongol armies in 1679. Sengge Namgyal’s expansionism may have been a reassertion of the Ladakhi monarchy’s historical claims. As will be discussed below, it also addressed extreme tensions both within Ngari and on its borders.4 In any case, the expansion of his authority had little to do with religious partisanship or Drukpa hostility to the Gelugpa, as suggested for example by Roberto Vitali (2012: 224-225). To cite a parallel example, Sengge Namgyal annexed the kingdom of Zangskar in 1638, and this clearly was not motivated by

‘Drukpa sectarianism’ because the king that he deposed, Sengge De (the third), was a devoted Drukpa patron as his father and grandfather had been.5 This king was moreover a highly committed Drukpa practitioner, renowned as King ‘Dzogi’ (Dzo gi, i.e. Yogi. Figure 3. TR: 91-92; DNT: 15; Petech 1977: 48).6 As will be seen below, all the kings of Ladakh upheld the legacy of an open, inclusive religious policy, and they had not altered this policy before the 1679 attack, despite the tensions that emerged in the first half of the 17th century.

Religious Patronage and Policies The weight of the documentary evidence, including the La dvags rgyal rabs (Francke 1926: 103, 107, 108), shows that the religious policies of the Ladakhi kingdom were never exclusive. Since at least the 15th century, successive kings and rulers had patronized several schools of Buddhism at the same time, rather than focusing exclusively on one. They did so not only in their own kingdom, but also in relation to Central Tibet, where they regularly sent offerings to the main monastic seats of the various schools.

This eclectic attitude shines through local Buddhist art as well. The rulers sometimes even patronised art depicting different traditions within a single work: murals reflecting this spirit from the 15th century are documented by Snellgrove & Skorupski (1977: 104) and by Lo Bue (2007). For the 15th and 16th centuries, Linrothe (2015 a) mentions murals in Zangskar and Guge and cloth paintings from the royal Basgo Castle. A similar eclectic approach is also demonstrated by private sets of religious scriptures copied in Zangskar between the 15th and the mid-17th centuries, which either praise masters of different traditions (Dargyay 1987) or include texts from different schools (Linrothe 2015 b). However, it is also true that, while concurrently supporting different lineages, the kings favoured particular religious champions as their personal ‘priests’. In the 15th and early 16th

centuries, Gelug masters were often favoured in that role, while from at least the mid- to late 16th century onwards, Drukpa practitioners were preferred (Schuh 1983 a, b). As is well-known, that preference was eventually sealed by the particular radiance of a wandering Drukpa yogi, Taktsang Repa Ngawang Gyatso (Stag tshang ras pa Ngag dbang rgya mtsho, alias Shamonath, 1574-1651, Figure 2). Thus in the early 17th century, King Jamyang Namgyal sent offerings to both the Gelug seat of Tashi Lhunpo in Tibet and to the Drukpa seat of Ralung (Francke 1926: 103). In 1614, he presented himself as a Drukpa patron (TR: 61) and later issued an invitation to the supreme head of the Drukpa lineage (Francke 1926:

107; Petech 1977: 34-35). Concurrently though, in 1618, the Ladakh royal family sent a similar invitation to the First Panchen Lama, the Gelug hierarch who had arrived in Guge at the invitation of the Guge chief lord (Vitali 1999: 47). A chronicler who accompanied the Panchen Lama reported that King Jamyang Namgyal and his sons, including Sengge Namgyal, were dedicated patrons of the Gelugpa (Vitali 2012: 61). Prince Sengge Namgyal became a Drukpa monk some time after 1616, when his brother temporarily removed him from the royal throne. When he came back to the throne in 1624, he chose Taktsang Repa as his spiritual mentor. Schwieger (1996) has shown that this yogi was neither a missionary nor a

politician. Huber (2008: 167, 175-177) describes him as embodying the Drukpa’s “particular ethos and practice style” of “mendicant asceticism and solitary meditation… spending much of one’s religious career wandering in the wilderness or remote locations”. He stresses that the motivation for Taktsang Repa’s initial presence in the western Himalayas was a “backwardlooking journey, back... to the roots of [[[esoteric]]] Buddhism”. Tucci (1940) dedicated a full volume to Taktsang Repa and other Drukpa yogis performing that challenging and enlightening “backward-looking” tantric journey.

On his 1614 pilgrimage, Taktsang Repa was summoned by King Jamyang Namgyal, but refused to meet him: “I am a beggar wandering to distant places; I do not prostrate to anyone but the Guru and the Three Jewels, whether the king likes it or not”.7 When they eventually met, the yogi refused to be the king’s priest. In response to Jamyang Namgyal’s insistence, he added:

In the tradition of my lineage, we keep to isolated holy places. (We don’t understand) agreeing with patrons so that one delights in their victories and delights in the fall of their enemies; (we don’t understand) envy towards those practitioners who are good, disparaging those who are bad, and conceit towards those in between. Even if I could understand, I don’t know how to do these things. Even if I considered coming, I have a counteragent to that (attitude), the practice called ‘panacea of complete openness’....8 The king reacted by pledging to have Taktsang Repa return in the future. That happened a decade later. Thereafter the magnanimity of Taktsang Repa, whose later incarnations would also be revered as the spiritual luminaries of all successive kings, shines throughout his biography and songs. Petech (1977: 52), who crosschecked and praised the historical

accuracy of the biography, says it all when he wrote that “[[[Taktsang Repa]]] would have none of what amounted to religious persecution”. The yogi still spent most of his time in strict retreat away from the court, but among his obviously inclusive deeds are his offering all his possessions to the monk communities of all traditions, and the inauguration of several Mani recitation festivals, during which the clergy of all schools congregated annually, practicing together, and being offered tea and new monastic robes. A protector for Sakya, Gelug, Drikung and Drukpa practitioners (TR: 79, 84, 134), he taught that sectarian deeds would only “undermine Buddhism [as a whole]” (e.g. TR: 84).9 Taktsang Repa’s open

and peaceful attitude reflects a distinct quality of Drukpa practitioners, which the great historian of Tibetan Buddhism, ’Gos Lotsawa (1392-1481) points out and praises in the Blue Annals: that of being “of humble conduct, not debating or discussing the tenets of other sects” (Roerich 1953, vol. 2: 669-670). Among evidence of inclusive religious policies in his time are the continued royal gifts to the various traditions in Tibet, including the Gelug (e.g. Francke 1926: 108, Petech 1977: 53). In 1646, the Dalai Lama himself noted in his autobiography that his monastic community had received presents from the royal family of Ladakh with a

request for prayer after Sengge Namgyal’s demise (Karmay 2014: 202). In the autumn of 1650, as Takstang Repa foresaw his own passing away, he requested that presents be offered to “all schools” (bstan sde kun); special gifts were sent to Tibet, including to the Dalai Lama in Drepung and the Panchen Lama in Tashi Lhunpo (TR: 118). Six months later, he expressed his final advice to the king, reminding him of the royal duty to support all the monastic communities, to rule without bias or prejudice, to revere all Buddhist teachings “impartially” (phyogs ris med), etc. (TR: 123).10 After his demise, the same attitude was consistently upheld. On the throne of Guge, King Indrabodhi Namgyal, son of Sengge Namgyal and one of the yogi’s closest disciples, issued an edict dated 1653 whereby he instructed his people to maintain Tholing (mTho ling) monastery, the stronghold of the Gelug in Guge, “in compliance with ancient custom” (Vitali 1999: 181). Thus, decades later on the eve of their 1679 attack, the Fifth Dalai Lama and Regent Sanggye Gyatso found no blame to the religious policies of the Guge king, but instead observed:

In the past, the Gelug (school) had greatly spread and flourished in Ngari, but since then, there had not even been one or two suitable masters of our tradition meeting the standard there. As a result, the Yellow school has now totally degenerated. What hope do we have to help, when that is a reason to go for war...11 The open religious attitude prevailing in the region before the war also emerges from the little known biography (PY: 102-159) of the wandering Drukpa hermit and siddha Paksam Yeshe (Grub thob dPag bsam ye shes, 1598-1667), a disciple of the Fifth Gyalwang Drukpa Paksam Wangpo (rGyal dbang ’brug pa dPag bsam dbang po, 1593-1641).12 In 1660/1661, the

siddha visited Ladakh from his main hermitage on the shore of Lake Manasarovar near Mount Kailash. He was invited to teach at various Drukpa monasteries of Ladakh, and also at Ma spro (seat of the Sakya school) and at Phyi dbang (seat of the Drikung school). On his frequent travels across Ngari Korsum in the 1650s and 1660s, he was revered by all villagers, nomads and noblemen of Mustang, Puhrang, Kinnaur, Guge, Changthang, Ladakh, and Lahaul. Not only longstanding Drukpa or Drikung patrons and monks, but also the Sakya teachers of Rab rgyas gling, the historic seat of the Sakya school in all Ngari Korsum (Tsering Gyalpo 2006), would seek his blessing, as did devotees in Spiti, an area that is now exclusively Gelug. He was particularly revered by the governor of Puhrang, mkhar dpon Dorje Gyatso, and by the rulers of Mustang.13

Fig. 2. Taktsang Repa Ngawang Gyatso (1574-1651). He is typically depicted as a cotton-clad yogi with the special turban he wore on his journey to Kashmir and Oddiyana (Swat valley, now Pakistan). Murals of Hemis Lhakhang Nyingpa (Ladakh), c. 1638. Photo: Dorjay Kaya, 2011.

Fig. 4. Rangrik Repa (1619-1683), identified by inscription. Murals of gTer khung rtse Temple (Zangskar), ca. 1750-1800. Photo: Nawang Jinpa, 2013.

Fig. 3. King Dzogi of Zanskar (17th century), identified by inscription. Murals of gTer khung rtse Temple (Zangskar), c. 1750-1800. Photo: Rob Linrothe, 2009.

Above all, religious openness is illuminated by the case of Shakya Gyatso, a leading nobleman in the second half of the 17th century. In 1673, he rose to the rank of general in chief of the Ladakh army and, in 1679, to that of chief minister. He was certainly not an exclusive supporter of the Drukpa, as he belonged by family tradition to the Sakya tradition (Francke 1926: 244). He worshiped the Sakya guardian Gur mgon as his personal protector and patronized the Sakya clergy, besides also seeking Drukpa blessings, as attested by the two private chapels that he sponsored (NIRLAC 2008, vol. 2: 602-603). It was he who led the defence of Ngari Korsum throughout the Mongol War. Internal Challenges in Ngari Korsum in the 17th Century Despite the openness of the Ladakhi rulers, contemporary documents also indicate religious tensions between some Gelug and Drukpa clerics. Taktsang Repa lamented this situation, and worked to resolve it (e.g. see TR: 78).

Within Ladakh Proper Religious tension may date back to the introduction of the Gelug school into Ngari Korsum in the 15th century. The movement, spearheaded by the local aristocracy, entailed the conversion of numerous older shrines (see e.g. Vitali 2012: 211-227, 230; Faggionato, this volume). It is possible that a domineering spirit might have emerged and lingered thereafter among the Gelug clergy (see Linrothe 2015). Thus in Sengge Namgyal’s youth, when he was a Drukpa monk, some monks in the main Gelug monastery of Thikse abused him and he reported that they also tore down Drukpa temples (TR: 83-84). Soon after

Fig. 5. Three outstanding Drukpa yogis of Mustang and Dolpo in the 17th century. Left: Tenzin Repa (1646-1723). Centre: Taktse Kukye (1642-1683). Right: Kunzang Jalu Zanghtal (1645-1695). Modern clay statues created by Nepalese and Bhutanese artists, Lama Lhakhang, Drukpa Plouray (France). Photo: Druk Nangsel, 2012.

ascending to the throne, the king considered a punitive gesture against Thikse, proposing to turn it into a Drukpa shrine, or else into a royal castle, but he renounced these ideas following successive admonitions from Taktsang Repa (TR: ibid). In 1644, the yogi repeatedly refused the request of the royal family to found a new Drukpa monastery in memory of the late Sengge Namgyal, arguing that there were enough Drukpa shrines already, and moreover that “others would be displeased; discord would ensue, ultimately harming Buddhism” (TR: 99). This suggests that members of the Gelug clergy may have developed assertively competitive attitudes, possibly stirred by their former importance in Ladakh and by the success of their school in Central Tibet. Given the wider evolution of Tibet, to be discussed in the next section, the kings of Ngari Korsum probably found it challenging to persevere in their ecumenical policies. An inclusive approach nevertheless remained the order of the day in Ladakh. By contrast, as will be seen in the following section, a more severe crisis struck Guge-Puhrang.

Tension in Guge-Puhrang a) Intrigues between Tholing and Tsaparang In the second and third decades of the 17th century, Guge-Puhrang was plagued by internal unrest, combined with almost uninterrupted tensions with Ladakh, the grounds for which have so far never really been elucidated. The two kingdoms had a skirmish shortly before 1620, when the ruler of Guge abruptly cancelled a marriage with the sister of the king of Ladakh. The arrangement for the wedding had already been made but she was repudiated shortly before her arrival at Tsaparang, the Guge capital. The king of Ladakh then declared war (Wessels 1924: 75-76; Petech 1977: 41-42). This rather obscure incident should perhaps be interpreted in the light of tensions within the Guge court. For about a century, the royal family of Guge had been closely associated with the Gelug school, which was then rising in Central Tibet. In accordance with an earlier tradition, a brother of the ruler would enter the monastic order and in due course assume the leadership of Tholing, the grand religious institution of Guge, turned into a Gelug shrine in the 15th century. The records show that there were important religious developments in Tholing until the middle of the 16th century, but nothing significant since then (Vitali 1999, 2012). The Tholing monks nevertheless retained great influence, and their number was increasing in the first decades of the 17th century, according to Portuguese Jesuit missionaries’ report (Wessels 1924: 76; 1932: 9-11). In 1624, the ‘chief lord’ of Guge, Tashi Drakpa De (bKra shis’grags pa sde) allowed these Portuguese Jesuits to

establish a mission at Tsaparang, and they found that he was hostile to his clergy. He perceived his own brother, the ‘chief lama’ of Guge, as a rival whose growing power he wanted to reverse. The king may have seen the Portuguese missionaries as a potential means to balance the power of the monks. The Gelug clergy were consequently mistreated (Wessels: Ibid).14 Eventually, the internal tension at the court became politically decisive. In 1630, as the country revolted and Tsaparang was under siege, the chief lama advised his brother to surrender. This “treacherous advice”—to adopt the missionaries’ phrase—provoked Guge’s collapse (Wessels 1924: 4; Petech 1977: 44). But before this fall is further discussed, it must be noted that these internal dissensions coincided with a struggle for yet another source of power: the supernatural might of Mount Kailash.

b) Mount Kailash and its ‘state deities’ The sacred Mount Kailash stands in Puhrang, the ancient southern kingdom of Ngari Korsum. At this stage in its history, Puhrang was subordinate to Guge, yet graced with its own distinct religious history. In the 17th century, the Drukpa lineage upheld the two ‘national’ temples of Puhrang, i.e. Khochar (Schuh 1983b: 35) and Pretapuri (Tsering Gyalpo 2006: 93-97), along with numerous hermitages and shrines (Tsering Gyalpo 2006). The Sakya and Drikung traditions also continued to thrive in Puhrang, while the Gelug school was insignificant there (Petech 1997; Tsering Gyalpo 2006, 2011). Mount Kailash in particular had been a Drukpa stronghold since the 13th century (Tise, cited in Petech 1988: 347; Vitali 1996: 408-410, notes 586, 671-674, 954; Tsering Gyalpo 2011: 19). This was all the more the case after the 15th century, when the Drikung tradition declined locally and handed its hermitages to the Drukpa yogis for want of Drikung hermits (Tise, cited in Petech 1988: 361). In the 1620s, before Ladakh

consolidated its authority in the region, a series of disputes around Mount Kailash brought the local Drukpa devotees into conflict with military troops sent by the Guge court (TR: 73, 77-79; Tise: 76b-77a; Gergan: 367-368; Petech 1977: 42-44). In 1628, several Drukpa hermits were killed, and more than ten imprisoned when the Guge army tried to carry away the holiest image in the Kailash area: the Choku (Chos sku) statue of Amitābha. This unique white marble statue had been installed in the days of King rTse lde (r. 1057-1088) in the capital of Ngari Korsum.15 Regarded as a protector of the successive kings, the statue’s ‘miraculous’ delivery to rTse lde, followed, generations later, by a ‘divine’ transfer by the king-like deity and protector of Mount Kailash, Gangri Lhatsen (Gangs ri lha brtsan), are legendary in Ngari Korsum (e.g. Vitali 1996: n.491; Huber & Rigzin 1999: 132-133). Choku is a ‘talking’ image that gave its name to the Drukpa

temple at Nyenpo Ridzong, where it stands, and where the shrine of Gangri Lhatsen also stands. The powerful blessings of Choku are so highly regarded that they are celebrated in a folksong that used to be part of Domoche, the King’s New Year festival of Ladakh, and the song is still popular today (Shakspo 2012: 181-183). The Guge authorities’ attempt to seize Choku in 1628 notoriously failed, in the midst of miracles described in the Mount Kailash guidebook Tise, composed by a Drikung hierarch (Huber & Rigzin 1999: 132-133). After that attack, as Taktsang Repa sought to mediate, the Guge representatives plainly requested that the holy mountain be “handed to them”. The master was however “unable to betray the aspirations of all the forefathers of the White (i.e. yogic) Lineage”16 and advised them to make amends for waging war on the holy mountain and to bring back whatever

belonged to the shrine (Gergan 1976: 368). King Sengge Namgyal considered intervening but on this occasion Taktsang Repa was able to dissuade him.17 Nevertheless, the situation remained fraught. Mount Kailash had been associated with monastic estates belonging to the Drukpa seat of Ralung since the 13th-14th century (PK: 185).18 To defend the holy place, the heir of Ralung, the Drukpa master Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, scion of the Gya clan, a high-ranking family associated with the ancient Tibetan empire, reacted independently of Ladakh. He dispatched a hundred Drukpa followers from the Southern Medicinal Valleys of Mön (later united as Bhutan) where he was staying.19 Tensions and incidents multiplied. Eventually in 1630, several vassals rose in revolt against the Guge rule. Soon afterwards, three feudatory chiefs and influential military commanders of the region, led by the governor of Chumurti, rebelled against the chief lord and called in the king of Ladakh. When at last the latter intervened militarily, only Tsaparang, the capital, resisted. It

was besieged before falling, as mentioned earlier, on the advice of the ruler’s priest (TR: 79-80; Wessels 1932: 10; Petech 1977: 44-45; 1997: 247).20 The details are unclear, but this revolution was almost certainly linked to the two internal crises that had upset both the secular and divine foundations of state power. In any case, King Sengge Namgyal exiled Tashi Drakpa and his family, including his monk brother and his uncle, the abbot of Tholing, to comfortable conditions in Ladakh (Petech 1977: 45).21 It would be wrong to see Sengge Namgyal’s intervention as an expression of Drukpa sectarianism. As noted above, the king’s devotion for the Drukpa could scarcely account for the similar deposing of the king of Zangskar, who was a Drukpa patron and yogi. Similarly, in Guge, the motives on both sides were much more complex. In this case, the leader of the revolution who

appealed to Sengge Namgyal was the governor of Chumurti—a major Sakya patron. The Chumurti area includes most importantly Rab rgyas gling, the regional seat of the Sakya School, besides a few Drukpa, Gelug and Nyingma shrines (Tsering Gyalpo 2006). Military Pressures on the Borders About the middle of the 17th century, the regional environment of Ngari Korsum called for exceptional political and military strength on the part of its rulers. Tensions needed to be tackled also on the borders. There is no space here to recall the pressure on Ladakh on its western and northern frontiers (see for example Petech 1977: 49-51), but several Mongol intrusions on the eastern front must be brought to mind. They are linked to the chaotic situation then devastating Central Tibet, which is addressed in the following section. In 1638, troops led by Chokur, a descendant of Altan Khan (1507-1582) advanced into Guge. Sengge Namgyal repulsed and pursued them far into Central Tibet. As he marched back, he subjugated a number of monastic fiefs and herding communities through Mustang and Droshod, granting their request for immunity. The Tsang Desi thereafter sent envoys to pay respect, probably to free his own forces for more critical battles elsewhere (Petech 1939: 146147; 1977: 46-47). In 1642, Ngari Korsum again had to face intruding troops, now detached from the Mongol army of Gushri Khan, who had just conquered Eastern and Central Tibet. Sengge Namgyal gathered in Guge all the men of his vast dominion, and the Mongols retreated. Back from this campaign, the king, cherished in Ladakh as the uncontested greatest ruler of the country till today, passed away in Hanle, his demise kept secret for a few years (TR 96-97; Petech 1977: 47-48).

Internal Stability, But Increasing Pressure From Central Tibet Sengge Namgyal’s territorial conquests did not entail control or repression. Rather, various studies suggest that the authority of Ladakh over its tributary states was limited to the levy of taxes and tribute in reward for protection, as Petech mentions for Guge and Puhrang (1977:45, 71) and for Ruthok (ibid: 46n), Jahoda for Spiti (2009: 49-51) and Vinding for Mustang (1988: 53). Respecting the local social, political and religious fabric, Ladakhi sovereignty did not penetrate deep into these societies. Nonetheless, the influence of a Dharma King of superior dynastic prestige, military vigour and magnanimous religious patronage apparently brought a relative degree of stability to the region. 126 TIBET JOURNAL To summarise this first section, the rulers of Ngari Korsum before the Mongol War cannot be characterised as aggressive partisans imposing their religious preferences onto others, although, as noted above, this misleading caricature has prevailed in Tibetan literature since the war. II. CENTRAL TIBET IN THE 17TH CENTURY In the first half of the 17th century, Central Tibet was marked by a long and bloody civil war and by a series of Mongol invasions. These concluded with the triumph of the Mongol armies of Gushri Khan, who first overcame Eastern Tibet, where the king of Beri was put to death and his territories annexed in 1641. He then conquered Central Tibet, where the local ruler, the Tsang Desi, was executed in 1642 while a new government, the Ganden Phodrang, was established in the same year over Eastern and Central Tibet. Its authority was secured by Gushri Khan’s armies “known for their brutality towards soldiers and civilians alike” (van Schaik 2012: 147). At the head of the Ganden Phodrang, the Fifth Dalai Lama initially espoused a policy of relative religious tolerance. As he and the Fifth Gyalwang Drukpa were cousins belonging to the same

aristocratic ’Phyong rgyas family, the Gelug and the Drukpa clergy had been at peace in Central Tibet in the first few decades of the 17th century (Smith 2001: 242; see TR: 78). But the Ganden Phodrang soon moved to reinforce and expand its combination of political and religious hegemony. In 1653 the Dalai Lama met the Shunzhi emperor (r. 1644-1661), the first Manchu on the Chinese throne, and they agreed that the Gelug tradition alone was “pure Buddhism” and that it was therefore necessary to spread it everywhere (Schwieger 2011: 249). In the 1660s and 1670s, Mongol troops led a series of purges of followers of other sects, whose texts were banned and monasteries converted by force into Gelug properties (Richardson 1958; Ardussi 2005; Ehrhard 2006; Schwieger 2011; van Schaik 2011).22 Residing in Tibet in the early 18th century, the Jesuit Ippolito Desideri was struck by the Gelugpas’ lingering “hate” and “persecution” of other traditions (Desideri 1937: 220-225). Recent studies conclude that the Gelug school owed its success in the second half of the 17th century to its “willingness to resort to violence” (van Schaik, 2011: 32). In the years preceding the 1679 attack on Ladakh, conditions were hard for those who did not entirely submit to the new religious authority in Tibet. If anyone failed to show respect for the Gelug teachings, the new ‘theocracy’ swore not to remain “without blood on [its] spears” (van Schaik 2011: 149). For a time, all Kagyupa followers were stigmatized and had to wear a thick piece of woollen thread around their necks as a

mark of identification (Schwieger 2011: 241). Central Tibet turned into a disfigured land “filled with widows, soldiers, bandits, and petty philosophical sophistry”, as Tenzin Repa (bsTan ’dzin ras pa 1646–1723) lamented. He was a Drukpa meditator from Mustang who had travelled in the 1660s to Central Tibet in a naive quest of blessing, before fleeing back home (Schaeffer 2004: 29, 97). Similarly, Rangrik Repa (Rang rig ras pa, 1619-1683, Figure 3), the great wandering Drukpa meditator from Spiti and root guru of the Sixth Gyalwang Drukpa, a yogi compared to Milarepa and revered by the king of Kathmandu (see later), ended his life running away from Tibet. Reaching Zangskar in 1680, he urged young local disciples not to dream of going to Tibet, because “hypocritical Dharma is widespread. Robbers rage everywhere. Even capable hermits cannot stay in hermitages. Even I had to flee.”23 He passed away a few years later in Kashmir, seeking the blessing of shrines associated with Mahāsiddha Naropa (10th -11th centuries), the forefather of the Drukpa lineage. As further discussed below, the Drukpa school was especially targeted, although several other lineages were also severely persecuted. In 1681, while the Mongol Ganden Tsewang occupied Ladakh, the regent of Tibet Sanggye Gyatso completed an authoritative set of ‘Guidelines for Government Officials’ of the Ganden Phodrang,24 commanding them to resort to Mongol forces against the Drukpa shrines and followers, and to “plunder and crush them as much as possible” (’phrog brdung sogs gang thub byed, SG: 63), “suppress them as much as possible” (mgo gnon gang thub byed, SG: 74) or else “prevent their development” (je rgyas mi yong ba, SG: 78).25 The Drukpa in particular are described as perverted (log lam), heretics (hwa shang gyi lta ba ngan pa) and deceivers (zog po) (SG: 74; see also Cüppers 2007: 50). That such orders were obeyed is celebrated in a document issued by Lhasa in 1773, retrospectively congratulating the Mongol armies for their endeavour at stopping the “impure” tenet systems, taking care that the Kagyu lineages (i.e. including the Drukpa and Kamtsang) would not be able to rise up again (Schwieger 2011: 249). In this violent context, before the 1679 attack, Ladakh had already endured severe pressure and threats from the Ganden Phodrang. In 1654, after the demise of Taktsang Repa, which was kept secret for several years, King Deldan Namgyal sent a message to Lhasa requesting that a high-ranking Drukpa master be permitted to travel from Tibet to Ladakh. He then received the reply that he should instead support the Gelugpas, because “the future wellbeing of the Drukpas in Central Tibet will be contingent upon the king’s active support for all the Gelug monasteries of Ladakh” (GD6: 91 a-b; see Ardussi 1977: 313).

Despite compromising again and again with Tibetan demands, the king of Ladakh eventually chose to stand firm against external interference. This posture was probably related to the similar resistance of many other aristocratic rulers and petty kings who governed the southern fringes of Tibet. III. BHUTAN AND OTHER KINGDOMS As the new Mongol-backed Tibetan power extended its hegemony and claim to superiority over the whole Tibetan cultural area, it pressed eastward and southward over decades of military aggression; one after the other, smaller and larger principalities were forced to surrender (e.g. see Ardussi 1977, 2005; Schwieger 2010, 2011). At last in 1679, the troops turned west toward Ngari and it is primarily within this wider context of vigorous military, administrative and religious expansion that the war against Ladakh must be located.

Bhutan and its Great Magician The war may be further understood as the aftermath of a series of Tibetan assaults onto the ‘Southern Medicinal Valleys of Mön’, which all turned out to be unprecedentedly unsuccessful and even humiliatingly disastrous for Lhasa.26 In order to resist the Tibetan invasions, these valleys united under the leadership of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, the Drukpa hierarch already mentioned, who belonged to an aristocratic line dating to the heyday of the Tibetan monarchy in the 7th century. Around the middle of the 17th century, his leadership led to the foundation of the modern state of ’Brug yul, i.e. the ‘Drukpa Country’, known in English as ‘Bhutan’ (Aris 1979).27 On no less than seven occasions between 1616 and 1679, Tibetan armies attacked this region; on each occasion, they were bested. The Ganden Phodrang attempted major invasions in 1644, 1648, 1656 and 1675 and the struggle evolved into a series of conflicts not only over territory but also prestige (Ardussi 1999: 65-66). Following the last military failure and humiliation of the Tibetans/Mongol forces, a peace treaty was finally signed in 1679. The fact that thereafter, the Mongol troops immediately turned westward could be seen as a mere shift to more promising horizons. While embarking on that campaign, the Mongol commander Ganden Tsewang repeatedly prayed that his march would turn Ngari Korsum and Ladakh into his own dominion (bdag gi mnga’ ’og tu ’gyur, in Halkias 2009: 68, 70, 78). But against the Bhutanese background, it appears that there was much more than a spirit of conquest. Shakabpa (1984:112) notes that the defeats in Bhutan

had “shattered the myth of an invincible Mongol army”. Ardussi (1977: 232, 236) adds that “thirst for revenge” had become a central issue, and he argues: Although the historical and political situations in Bhutan and Ladakh were really quite distinct, the sectarian issue [i.e. Drukpa affiliation] united them in such a way as to magnify their common threat as perceived from Lhasa. To counter it, the Tibetan authorities (...) resorted once more to war (Ardussi 1977: 313-314).28 The sense of “common threat” was probably fuelled by two upsetting phenomena, amplifying Lhasa’s anxiety: first that the Drukpa seemed to possess an imposing ‘occult’ spiritual power, and secondly that this power was sought by nearly all major ruling families along the southern marches of Tibet, in addition to Bhutan and Ngari Korsum. Regarding the first ‘amplifier’, Ardussi (1999: 65-66) explains that the Drukpa’s spiritual power was perceived as the agent behind the repeated failures endured by Lhasa. This ‘magic’ or ‘sorcery’ was in particular cited in connection with the death of the fierce Gushri Khan in 1655 and the death of the 5th Dalai Lama’s belligerent regent Sonam Chophel in 1658. Ardussi concludes:

...the struggle between Tibet and Bhutan is noted for both its ferocity and macabre tactics…Sorcery was a weapon widely used. One of [[[Zhabdrung]]] Ngag-dbang-rnam-rgyal’s epithets was mThu-chen [“Great Magician” or “Great Power”].

This perhaps helps explain why, already in the mid-1660s, it was impossible for anyone known to be a Drukpa devotee to travel freely in Tibet (Schaeffer 2004: 26-30, 97; Ehrhard 2006: 3).29 At the same time, according to Ardussi, this also explains why Tibetan records skip over their disastrous endeavours in Bhutan and their various implications. Other kingdoms The other probable ‘amplifier’ was an apparent common spirit shared by many rulers at the fringes of the expanding new power. Ardussi (1977), Petech (1977) and Schuh (1983a, b) stress the difficulty that the Drukpa lineage underwent in the 17th century as both the Fifth and then Sixth Gyalwang Drukpa in Tibet and the Zhabdrung in Bhutan claimed to be the incarnation of the spiritual head of the school. However, as these authors also note, the

ruling families of Ngari Korsum and elsewhere were apparently less concerned with the split and simply patronized and revered both emerging branches of the Drukpa. Thus by 1679, not only in Ladakh, Zangskar, Guge, Puhrang, Kinnaur and Lahaul but also in the southernmost regions of Ngari Korsum (Dolpo, Mustang, Jumla), kings and chiefs had sought the blessings of the Drukpa lineage and established numerous ‘priest/patron’ (mchod yon) connections. These alliances originated in the 16th century or earlier, and were strengthened throughout the 17th century, with the foundation of several hermitages and monasteries. Although this facet of the local religious history has not yet been fully studied, it shines through the fact that many great realized Drukpa yogis were either invited to—or emerged in—these regions from the late 16th century onwards.30 For example, the Drukpa

Dordzin (‘Vajra Holder’of Mount Kailash) Dongak Rabjam (d. c. 1615?), a disciple of the Fourth Gyalwang Drukpa, was the guru of the king of Jumla around 1570-1580 (Schuh 1983a: 35); the wandering siddha Paksam Yeshe (as mentioned above) was highly revered by the rulers of Mustang; a line of Drukpa masters titled ‘Mustang Incarnate’ (glo bo sku skye) was also very close to the same ruler—the first incarnate died during the Mongol War in1684 at Mount Kailash, where he was serving Bhutan as the local Dordzin (Ardussi 1977: 309-310); the Mustang rulers also revered the Drukpa hermit Taktse Kukye (Puntsok Sherab 1642-1715) who is there renowned as the mahāsiddha (Ehrhard 1994, 2002: 148 n3; Schaeffer 2004: 43); in Mustang concurrently lived the recluse Jetsun Jalu Zangthal (1645-1695, Thrinley Dorje 2013: 512-513). In both Dolpo and Mustang, the exalted local yogi Jetsun Tenzin Repa

(mentioned earlier) founded several hermitages; the yogi Sonam Wangchuk (1660-1731), whose biography has been translated by Snellgrove (1967), also thrived in Dolpo.31 There, the shrine of Dechen Palri was founded in 1686 as a reliquary for the remains of Thubten Wangpo, a local Drukpa ‘great hidden yogi’ (sbas pa’i rnal ’byor pa chen po) (Ehrhard 1998: 4-5, 10), and so forth. Furthermore, even in the valley of Kathmandu, in what is now central Nepal, the king of Gorkha invited in 1673 to his court Damcho Pekar (1639-1708), a

Drukpa master and the future spiritual head of Bhutan (ruled 1697-1707). The latter’s biography reports that the king entrusted him with the responsibility of leading the whole Buddhist community of his country. Members of other traditions, in particular the Gelugpa, attempted to drive out the Drukpa lineage but it flourished in the country despite their efforts and bribes made to the king (Karma Rigzin 2011). Thereafter and for centuries until today, royal land estates were granted by the kings to the Drukpa lineage in Kathmandu and in other areas including Mustang and Dolpo (e.g. see Aris 1979: 240, 249). While Damcho Pekar came from Bhutan, Drukpa masters of the Tibetan

branch also thrived. Around 1679/80, the great yogi Rangrik Repa mentioned above enjoyed the faith of King Parthivendra Malla of Kathmandu (r. circa 1680-1687) and restored the great Swayabhunath and Bodhnath stupas. His remains were brought back from Kashmir and, with King Parthivendra’s support, they were enshrined at Bodhnath in 1684 to follow the yogi’s reported prophecy that by this means, “joy will arise in all [the regions of] Nepal and Tibet, and in particular foreign armies will be kept back for some years”. This is the first occurrence of a stupa of Tibetan style being built in Kathmandu (Ehrhard 2002: 155-157, 2006: 3). Thus from Bhutan to Ladakh, the frontier regions became increasingly devoted to—and imbued with—the Drukpa stream of blessing. This shared spirit certainly fuelled the anxiety of the new power in Lhasa, as these kingdoms did not acknowledge its

supremacy.32 With the exception of Bhutan, which emerged as a political entity only in the middle of the 17th century, in all these regions temporal power remained in the hands of the old local aristocratic families, who were not religiously partisan or exclusive.33 In particular, the characteristics of the Drukpa masters that they venerated left no room to religious narrowness and political intrusion: nearly all were wandering yogis or high-minded meditators who, even at the height of their fame, spent most of their lives half-naked in remote mountain caves and huts, busy taming their own minds and psychic energies, and providing meditative guidance for others (Figures 4 and 5). They were so free from

temporal concerns that some did not even found a single shrine, while the others only established isolated hermitages or retreat centres. Like Taktsang Repa in Ladakh, they were ras pa (cotton clad) meditators and yogis who upheld the ascetic tradition of the great saint Milarepa. Their tradition is called a ‘practice’ (sgrub) lineage (brgyud), and it is renown as the ‘white’ (dkar) lineage (brgyud), not only because of the light and white cotton worn by the yogis, but also because of their focus on inner exertion and service, and of their distinctive disinterest in argument.34

IV. POSSIBLE ECONOMIC MOTIVES

The Ganden Phodrang’s expansionism may also have been motivated by competition for economic resources, including the control of the shawl wool trade, the gold fields of Ngari, and the prestigious religious sites around Mount Kailash.

Trade As noted above, several authors have recognized the importance of trade as a factor contributing to the outbreak of the sog po’i dmag. The 1684 peace treaty between Ladakh and Tibet, which seems also to have incorporated an

earlier agreement between Ladakh and Kashmir, regulated the shawl wool trade in considerable details (Francke 1926: 116; Bray, forthcoming). The 1679 treaty between Tibet and Bashahr likewise provides that traders travelling between the two territories should be free from taxation (Halkias 2009). Gold Fields Gergan (1976: 18) has been one of the few historians to refer to the gold fields of Ngari as a possible target for Ganden Phodrang expansionism. There is no reference to gold in any surviving treaty, but the abundance of gold in the region was very well known, although the details of the economics of its mining and trading are not yet fully understood. Emmer (2007: 88-89) notes the repeated mentions of gold gifts from Ladakhi rulers to various distant recipients, especially dignitaries in Tibet, and with much

reservation, acknowledges that the gold trade could have been a significant factor in the war. From antiquity, there has been a hazy knowledge of gold in the soil and the rivers in the region of Ngari Korsum (see for example Petech 1977: 6, 8 and Zeisler 2010: 416-417). The notion of a golden land may be part of the mythological geography of Mount Kailash as a representative of the central axis of the world arising from the golden earth (Zeisler 2009-2010: 444-446). When Ngari Korsum was created in the 10th century, the eastern and northern frontiers of Ladakh (Maryul) were defined with gold mines as reference points (Francke 1926: 35, 94, retranslated in Ahmad 1968: 340). At that time, the availability of gold proved to be of paramount importance in the ‘Second Diffusion’ of Buddhism from India and Kashmir, texts and teachings being exchanged for gold. In the 15th century, Guge

appointed a gser dpon or gold minister (Petech 1997: 255, n99), possibly indicating the discovery of new gold fields. In the middle of the 16th century, the Turkmen Mirza Haidar Dughlat, who repeatedly invaded Ladakh and ventured into Guge, described gold extraction as an important activity generating income for the ruling class and the common people alike. Fascinated by its widespread abundance in Guge, he concluded “God has so created this soil that when the gold is taken from the ground, it does not diminish” (Dughlat 1895: 411-412). Around 1580/90, it was with gold that Guge and Ruthok paid tribute to Ladakh (Francke 1926: 105) and in the early 17th century, the Jesuits noted that conflicts between Ladakh and Guge had impoverished the country of Guge by “rendering impossible the working of... mines” (Wessels 1924: 75-76). Probably, the profusion of gold in King Sengge Namgyal’s dominion, which the La dvags rgyal rabs celebrates,35 helped give his reign its distinctive flavour of splendour and lavish support for Buddhist art. Under his patronage, there

emerged an innovating and refined style of murals, enriched with extensive use of gold, “the golden age of Ladakhi art” (Bellini 2011: 95, 99). Petech (1977: 51-53) argued that the king may have impoverished his country with his religious donations and that he committed economic suicide when he cut off trade with Kashmir in 1639. Petech (1977: 79-80) thus presents “financial ruin” as the cause for Ladakh being “utterly crushed” in the Mongol War. He seems to have overlooked Ladakhi access to gold, but Tibetans in the second half of the 17th century would have been less likely to do so, and therefore Gergan’s argument may be taken seriously.

Pilgrimage Sites and Sacred Shrines Lastly, control over the great holy places of Mount Kailash, Lake Manasarovar and surrounding sites was a great source of national prestige (Ardussi 1977: 311). Although pilgrimages did not yield significant income by themselves (ibid.), they often merged with trade: the case of Darchen, which is both the entry point for the circumambulation of Mount Kailash and a trade centre, is a good example of that fusion (see Bray 2012: 12-17). Moreover, as illustrated above by the struggle over Mount Kailash and its most sacred image in 1628, high sanctity essentially yielded a much coveted form of power, subtle and symbolic yet all-encompassing. Just as ‘magic’ was a treasured weapon in time of war, the ownership of such a major ‘powerstation’ was certainly not valueless politically. Thus Gergan (1976: 430) regards the seizure of these holy places as one of the main aims of the Mongol attack. However, the peace treaty prevented their transfer to Lhasa authority: special enclaves were created within the annexed territories (Bray 2012).

V. THE AFTERMATH OF THE 1679-1684 WAR

The Mongol military occupation of Ngari Korsum between 1679 and 1684 has already been described by Petech (1947, 1977) and others, including modern Ladakhi historians (Tashi Rabgias 1984, Shakspo 2012). There is therefore no need to go into the details of the military campaign here. It is nevertheless worthwhile to summarise briefly the events that immediately followed the conflict, since these give a clue to the Ganden Phodrang’s war aims. Once the peace treaty had been signed, the Mongol Ganden Tsewang took with him the second son of the king of Ladakh Deldan Namgyal, at least partly as a hostage. The following year, the prince and all his attendants had their heads shaved in Lhasa as Gelug monks (Ahmad 1968: 360-361; Petech 1977: 83-86). Nine years later, Sanggye Gyatso sent the princely monk back in Ladakh to serve as the representative of Drepung, the main Gelug seat in Lhasa, declaring that owing to the Mongol Ganden Tsewang’s “conquest”,

the monk had de facto authority over the totality of the monasteries of Ladakh regardless of their affiliation. In the document expressing that command, the ruler of Ladakh is no more titled ‘king’, left alone ‘Dharma King’, but only “secular governor” (srid skyong) (Petech 1977: 84-85).36 However, the manoeuvre was ignored, and religious policy remained in the hands of the ruling families (Petech 1977: 86-88; Faggionato 2015). The next ruler, King Nyima Namgyal (r. 1694-1729) is celebrated in Ladakh to this day as one of the country’s most prominent Dharma Kings. Nonetheless, the Mongol War had significant consequences on the local landscape.

The Destruction of Drukpa Shrines As stated in the Guidelines for Government Officials issued by Lhasa in 1681 (SG, op. cit.), the Ganden Phodrang had come to the view that Drukpa places needed to be crushed, and this raises the question of what happened to Drukpa shrines during the occupation of Ladakh. Shakspo (2012: 133) reports that destruction was the order of the day and there are indeed, in various areas of Ladakh, ruins of Drukpa temples which— according to the local oral tradition—were destroyed by Ganden Tsewang’s troops. For example, the main temple of Hanle is believed to have been set on the fire by his soldiers, who also targeted and damaged the funeral reliquary of King Sengge Namgyal on the hillside (Nawang Jinpa, forthcoming). In Sumda Chen and Sumda Chung, all the temples dating from the 12th or 13th centuries are said to have been demolished by Ganden Tsewang’s

raiders, except for the famous one at Sumda Chung, which was hidden by a landslide and is therefore still standing today among ruins. Similar destruction is reported for most shrines in Markha Valley (some mentioned in NIRLAC 2:185, 368), some dating back to the 13th and 14th centuries. All the temples in the GyaMiru valley are believed to have been similarly damaged, including possibly the very ancient Drukpa seat of Miru, the ‘mother of Hemis’.

Enforced Military, Administrative and Religious Changes The Ganden Phodrang’s intervention in other areas of Ngari Korsum was even more forceful. It started at the outset of the 1679 conflict through multiple actions backed up by the army. During or immediately after the occupation of Ladakh, Ganden Tsewang attacked Mustang (Ardussi 1977: 391) and perhaps its neighbours. Right after the war, Mongol troops were posted all over Ngari, including “several hundred soldiers” at Darchen near Mount Kailash “in order to prevent attacks on Buddhism in the region” (Dar chen 2002: 6-7). Twenty-five Mongol military officers settled in Guge at Tashigang (Tsering Gyalpo 2006), the site of an important Drukpa monastery

associated with Taktsang Repa (Francke 1926: 109, 110; Tsering Gyalpo 2006: 79). Thus in 1715, the Jesuit missionary Desideri found the region “garrisoned by a strong body of Tartar [i.e. Mongol] and Thibetan troops” headed by “a Tartar Prince” (Desideri 1937: 82). Today the officers’ descendants are still called “the Twenty-five Mongol Warriors (sog dmag)”; they used to participate in monthly propitiation rituals at Mount Kailash held for the governor (Bellezza 2012). Indeed, Tibetan governors and administrators were simultaneously dispatched from Lhasa to Guge, Puhrang and Spiti (Ahmad 1968: 348-349, 351) and they overpowered the existing local ruling families (Vitali 1999, 2012).37

Concurrently, the construction of several Gelug monasteries in the annexed territories started as soon as 1684, the abbots being now despatched from Lhasa, including in Tholing (Petech 1977: 78, 85). These constructions affected locations strongly affiliated with the Drukpa lineage such as Tashigang (mentioned above) and Taklakot, then capital of Puhrang, where Kochar, the holiest ancient temple of Puhrang, had been maintained by the Drukpa lineage since at least the 16th century (see above). Further Drukpa shrines were converted into Gelug shrines in the following decades and centuries (Tsering Gyalpo 2006).38 It was probably in that process, which remains to be studied, that the Drukpa lineage

disappeared from Ruthok and from Spiti, perhaps deliberately wiped out.39 The condition of the annexed territories was thus forcefully, quickly and deeply transformed, especially near the main political centres and trade routes, whereas the changes attempted in what remained of Ladakh were unsuccessful. This was probably because the kingdom preserved its historical social identity centred on the authority of the king and local ruling families that Ladakh regarded itself as “victorious” and even “happy” at the outcome of the Mongol War, a view expressed in a royal charter by King Nyima Namgyal (Francke 1926: 242-244). The La dakh rgyal rabs (Ibid.: 117) thus similarly describes the aftermath of the Mongol War: “Again the kingdom flourished as before, and enjoyed the highest felicity of virtue and happiness.”40

Rewriting History In spite of the political continuity in Ladakh, the history of the war’s background—the casus belli—was rewritten in Tibetan reports. As noted above, on the eve of the war no fault was found in the policies of Indrabodhi Namgyal, king of Guge. However, after the war, Sanggye Gyatso retrospectively accused him of having kept Tholing down (Vaūrya serpo, in Petech 1977: 71). In the same text, while telling the story of his school in Ngari Korsum, and faithfully copying an earlier history book written by a

contemporary witness, Sanggye Gyatso “cautiously omitted” to mention that Sengge Namgyal had patronized the Gelugpa (Vitali 2012: 61). Overall, the Tibetan version of the war strikes one as that of a party providing a discourse to justify its aggression. Its description of the king of Ladakh as anti-Gelugpa, evil and sometimes even anti-Buddhist may be seen as the sort of shadow, which has been similarly cast to the ruler of Tsang, in a process termed “character assassination” by Templeman (2012: 72); in that latter case, Templeman speaks of “of a revanchist type of literature”. Nonetheless, this is the distorted narrative of the Mongol War that many international scholars of Ladakh have absorbed and which is now globally available on the internet.

CONCLUSION

It is my hope that this essay has shown that—notwithstanding its Drukpa leanings and despite the tensions that arose from political and religious powerplay in the 17th century—the Ladakhi monarchy maintained an inclusive approach to the various religious schools. The prime sources of the Mongol War can therefore be seen in the Ganden Phodrang’s centralising expansionism, and not in irrational behaviour on the part of Ladakh. As we have seen from the teaching of the First Taktsang Repa, the Ladakhi monarchy’s open approach was itself consistent with Drukpa ethics. While the Drukpa lineage received royal patronage, there is no indication of Drukpa clerics attempting to overpower other religious traditions or shrines—let alone secular rulers—in the region. Moreover, it was none other than the hierarch of the Drukpa lineage himself, Mi pham dbang po (1642-1715), the 6th Gyalwang Drukpa, who came from Tibet in 1684 to mediate and establish the treaty sealing peace between Ladakh and Tibet. He was entrusted with that mission by Lhasa because he was non-sectarian. According to Tashi Rabgias (1984: 247-248):

When Mongol Ganden Tsewang captured Leh palace [in 1680], many documents came into his hand, which he sent to Lhasa... Among them, Regent Sanggye Gyatso [in Lhasa] found several letters written by the Drukpa Kyabgon Mipham Wangpo to the king of Ladakh... in which the king was advised to adopt a friendly attitude towards the Tibetan government, to hold the Gelug teachings as central (gtso bor ’dzin), etc.

Tashi Rabgias does not cite his sources regarding these letters, but he notes that the same advice to the king is found in the Gyalwang Drukpa’s own biography, which is the case for the year 1661 (GD6: 104a-b). In the particular

context of 1661, the recommendation was probably not simply the reflection of a general Drukpa openness towards other traditions. It may also be seen as hinting at rising tension and Mongol belligerence. On a related topic, several modern historians have argued that Sakya patrons in Ngari resisted the influence of the Gelugpa (Tucci 1949: 482; Petech 1997: 244 n.87). The cases of Sakya patrons presented here, such as the governor of Chumurti, the ruling families of Mustang or the army commander of Ladakh, show that their resistance was motivated by temporal concerns rather than religious identities. While these noblemen held high political rank—and hence major economic roles—they simultaneously supported several spiritual traditions. On the other hand, the Ganden Phodrang regarded religious images and temples associated with the dynastic authority of local rulers as legitimate

targets for destruction or for transformation into Gelug shrines. This is most likely because they regarded them as source of power—including ‘occult’ power—for the rulers whom they opposed. A similar attitude is also found in the history of state building and invasions in medieval India (Eaton 2000: 106107). That perspective helps explain why the Ganden Phodrang saw the Drukpa lineage and its temples as military targets and wished to establish control over Mount Kailash. This does not imply that Ladakh’s participation in the war was religiously motivated. If Ladakh had fought the Mongol War for religious reasons, resorting to Muslim Mughals to get rid of Buddhist aggressors would have been an

aberration.41 Wider Perspectives The history of Ngari Korsum in the 17th century supports the view of modern Tibetologists such as Bogin (2006) or Templeman (2012) that the grid of multilateral or ‘two-toned’ religious sectarianism, with‘Red Hats’ opposing ‘Yellow Hats’, seems to be an obscuring simplification provided by Tibetan historians after the advent of the Ganden Phodrang. New studies show that until then, rulers, patrons, and dignitaries were primarily concerned with the complexities of familial matters, allegiances to royal lines, and temporal power, rather than sectarian identities. Adding the weight of geographical boundaries and territorial allegiance (see e.g. Schwieger 1997),42 and extending the timeline, this understanding seems to articulate well the historical reality of Ladakh. A strong monarchy, symbolized by the Leh palace built in the 1630s (i.e.

decades before the Potala in Lhasa),43 Ladakh was a kingdom where, unlike Tibet after 1642, political power not only always remained in the hands of temporal rulers, but all four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism have thrived side by side. This remained true until modern times, despite—or owing to—the strong Drukpa affiliation of the majority of the aristocratic families.

Notwithstanding the 17th century upheavals, the Ladakhi monarchy remained true to its original inclusive approach. Indeed, the later religious history of Ladakh in the 18th century adds further evidence of open collaboration for the regional development of Buddhism. The most important religious leaders in this period included two successive royal monks (rgyal sras rin po che) who were Drukpa spiritual authorities and also served as regents of the kingdom (see Petech 1977: 106-107, 119-120; Tashi Rabgias: 333-339; Nawang Jinpa, forthcoming). For lack of space, this display of monarchic resourcefulness must be put aside. However, it may be noted that ecumenical initiatives in the days of these ‘Precious Princes’ included the foundation in 1783 of the Gelug monastery of Rangdum, with the support of the Drukpa monastic seat of Hemis. On a similar note, the famous Hemis Tsechu festival, the special national holiday of Ladakh, was launched in 1788 with the support of the Panchen Lama (see e.g. Tashi Rabgias 1984: 336).44 The great practical

openness of Taktsang Repa, respected as the all-inclusive religious authority in Ladakh, remained so highly regarded that it was recalled and praised by the 13th Dalai Lama. In 1896, when the fifth Taktsang Rinpoche (1884-1939) left Lhasa to be enthroned in Ladakh, the Tibetan ruler expressed the expectation that the young incarnate would serve Buddhism in just the same way as the former incarnation.45 When the sixth and current incarnate, born in 1941, was recognized by the Tibetan government, Lhasa composed a similar eulogy of his lineage, as expressed in a silk document, dated 1943, on display at the Hemis Museum.46 The special qualities of Ladakh that allowed the country to serve as a buffer for

Buddhism on the Tibetan Plateau, accepting and mitigating other influences, deserve further attention and appreciation. The 1684 peace treaty that concluded the Mongol War stressed Ladakh’s significance as a kingdom standing at the border of the Buddhist world. Given the present military sensitivity of its borders, today the region is no long the ‘cross-road of high Asia’ that it used to be. Nevertheless, it still remains a meeting point of major religions in the cradle of a particular ancient Himalayan culture, whose characteristics and flexibility remain to be well understood, cherished and preserved.

Notes 1. I wish to thank John Bray for patiently reviewing this article from its earliest drafts to its completion. I am also grateful to Rob Linrothe and Petra Maurer, who freely shared their guidance. 2. It is curious that the Drukpa ruler of Bhutan is presented as the priest of the king of Ladakh in 1679 at a time when the main religious advisor of the king, Taktsang Repa II (Tsokye Dorje c.1655-c.1690?), was present in Ladakh and very highly respected at the court (Petech 1977: 60 n. 4,

76; see also DNT: 37-40 and Petra Maurer 2015; Nawang Jinpa, forthcoming). 3. Dung dkar 2004, vol.1: 598: La dvags rgyal po yul gzhan gyi dpal ’byor la mi bzod pa’i phrag dog dang/ lhag par dge ldan ring lugs kyi bstan pa khyab gdal du dar bar log pa’i bsam ngan ’chang bzhin tshur rgol gyi bya ba ci rigs brstams pas ta’ la’i bla ma sku phreng lnga pas la dvags kyi rgyal po de nyid ’dul ba’i skabs su babs pa dang/ bkra shis lhun po’i dga’ ldan tshe dbang de nyid kyis ’dul ba’i dus su babs par dgongs... “The king of Ladakh suffered from overwhelming jealousy towards the glory and riches of other countries; in particular, he held such errant perverted thoughts against the flourishing and spreading of the teachings of the Gelug tradition that he launched all kinds of aggressive actions. As a consequence, the Fifth Dalai Lama considered that the time had come for Ganden Tsewang

of Tashi Lhunpo to tame that king of Ladakh.” 4. The term Ngari here refers to ‘greater Ngari’, i.e. Ngari Korsum, not to the truncated area now called Ngari in the present Tibet Autonomous Region. 5. On the devotion of the kings of Zangskar for the Drukpa lineage in the 16th century, see Schuh 1983a: 46-47; 1983b: 32-34, and Nawang Jinpa (forthcoming). 6. Dzogi is a Tibetan phonetic rendering of the Indic ‘yogi’. 7. TR: 61. Nga sa mtha’ skor ba’i sprang po yin/ nga ni bla ma dkon mchog min pa su la’ang phyag byed kyi med par rgyal po dgongs par bde mi bde med... 8. TR: 61-62. Nged kyi brgyud srol la dgon gnas bzung/ sbyin bdag dang gros lugs bcig pa byas nas rang phyogs rgyal na dga’/ gzhan phyogs pham na

dga’/ gzhan chos pa bzang ba la phrag dog/ ngan pa la sun ’byin/ bar du rang la rloms zhen byed/ de ’dra nged kyis shes kyang mi shes/ gal te ’ong grabs ’dug kyang de’i gnyen por bldog bsgom chig chog zer ba cig yod. The cultivation of “complete openness” (ldogs gom) is an esoteric and advanced yogic practice of selflessness, translated more literally as ‘reversed’ cultivation; it requires acting in ‘anti-natural’ or ‘reversed’ ways such as deliberately supporting one’s enemies and embracing loss, pain, death, etc. For qualified practitioners, it is a forceful means to abide in the transcendence of self-concern. Here however, Taktsang Repa continues with a simple reminder of the futility of worldly achievements in the face of death.

9. De ’dra mdzad na sangs rgyas kyi btsan pa bshig par ’gro bas... On ‘sectarianism’, see the following note. 10. The expression phyogs ris med, which I translated here as ‘impartially’, has a reverse equivalent phyogs ris or phyogs ’dzin, usually translated as ‘one-sidedness, sectarianism, partiality, bias, fanaticism...’ (See note above). 11. Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama, f. 131a, in Ahmad (1968: 345): Mnga’ ris phyogs su snga sor dge lugs dar rgyas che ba de bzhin yin kyang bar du rang phyogs kyi bla ma re gnyis kyis ma ’pher bar brten ding sang zhva ser po’i bstan pa shin tu nyams dma’ gar phan cha zhig ae yod re bas dmag la ’gro ba’i rgyu mtshan zer... 12. He is briefly mentioned

by Huber (2008: 175-176) as one of those he calls “widely travelled Drukpa yogins” and “mendicant practitioners”. 13. On Mustang, see below. 14. Francke (1914b: 111) notes that Tashi Drakpa’s leanings were lamented as far as Spiti, as attested by a rock inscription near Tabo monastery. Coincidently in the 1620s, other rulers who were also challenged politically or militarily by the developments in Central Tibet similarly welcomed Portuguese missionaries: the Tsang Desi did so in Central Tibet (Tucci 1949: 62-63; Shakabpa 1984:102), as did Zhabdrung Nawang Namgyal (Zhabs drung Ngag dbang rnam rgyal), to whom we shall later return, in the region that would later be united as Bhutan. In the latter case, in spite of the permission to build a church, it is clear that the ruler’s main motive was political, if not military (Ardussi 1977: 216; Aris 1979: 218). 15. Tsede ruled

both Puhrang and Guge and at some point also Ladakh (Vitali 1996; 2003: 65-66). In his days, the political centre of the kingdom was in Puhrang (Petech 1997: 232, 238), and this was possibly at the castle of Kardung, nearby the important royal shrine Kochar (Vitali 1996: n337). On Kardung, or Kardum, see note 16 below. 16. In Gergan 1976: 368. ngas dkar rgyud pa thams chad kyi thugs thag ngas mi chod. 17. In passing, this suggests that Ladakh was still then the ultimate arbitrating authority in the region, above Guge’s chief. 18. Ralung is the first historic Drukpa seat founded around 1205 in Central Tibet. In PK, a register of Ralung written around 1580, Padma Karpo notes that an important Drukpa relic had been shifted from Kardum to Guge, associating Kardum, the old capital of Puhrang, with “the [[[Ralung]]] monastic estates of Mount Kailash” (Tise’i mchod gzhis dkar dum). These

were probably the “old estates” confirmed by a 1661 edict of the king of Ladakh (Schuh 1983 a: 50, doc. G(2) 6. lines 24-25), which mentions the Drukpa’s “old and new monasteries and monastic estates by the Snow Mount Kailash” (gangs ti se...dgon chos gzhis gsar rnying rnams) and titles the Drukpa lineage “the owner and holder of Mount Kailash” (gangs ti se’i ’dzin bdag) (Ibidem line 32). 19. On the ancient history of the prestigious Zhab drung rGya clan, see Vitali (2004). 20. Dzogi is a Tibetan phonetic rendering of the Indic ‘yogi’. 21. Later Tibetan histories tell that in 1630, the king of Ladakh “exterminated the royal lineage of Guge” (e.g. rgyal rabs rtsab rlags in Tsering Gyalpo 2006: 58), which is a groundless statement now found in Chinese popular media, where it is furthermore said that Guge was entirely wiped out (e.g. Xion Lei 2003). Compare these statements with the

aftermath of the Mongol War in Guge, in the last section of the present paper. 22. Sanggye Gyatso lists several converted Drukpa monasteries (Ahmad 1999: 268-270 and 332). 23. DNT: 96: Hor ngan zog po’i bstan pa dar nas/ dbus gtsang kun tu yang chos pas ri thub kyang ri chos pa mi thub pa’i dus su sleb’dug pas/ nga yang ’dir phyog la bros nas yong dgos pa yin/ 24. Christoph Cüppers has thus named this authoritative set of governmental instructions and laws, shortened as SG here (see bibliography). 25. The first quote applies to all the schools that he opposed; the following two quotes apply specifically to the Karma Kamtsang and the Drukpa schools, and the last, to the Drukpa in particular. 26. See

Ardussi (1977) for a detailed account of what he described as a series of humiliations. 27. For the early history of Bhutan, see Ardussi (1977), Aris (1979), etc. 28. The very long geographical distance ruled against actual military alliance (e.g. Ardussi 1977: 312). 29. It was clearly in reverence to that ‘magic’ that in the 1680s, the Derge king (sa skyong) Sanggye Tenpa (d. 1710) insistantly entreated the ruler of Bhutan to send a Drukpa master as his personal priest. In 1688, Jamgon Ngawang Gyaltshen was dispatched, travelling clandestinely through Tibet. He was asked to describe the Zhabdrung’s main fortress, Punakha Dzong, which the king painted as a thangka and hung above his customary seat. The king also enquired about the Drukpa protective deities and had a special temple built at his palace for their daily worship

(Yonten Dargye & Sørensen 2008: 90-94; 103-104). Interestingly, Jamgon Ngawang Gyaltshen was later called to the court of Ladakh and served there between 1706 and 1712 (ibid.: 133-165, see also Ardussi 1977: 124) 30. Summarized biographies of most of these masters can be found in Thrinley Dorje (2013). Additional references in English are provided there. 31. Regrettably, Snellgrove (1967) made no comment on the evolution and eclectic studies and practices of his Four Lamas of Dolpo, presenting them merely as Sakya Ngor masters. Yet in the biographies he presents, most of them appear to have practiced, upheld and promoted major Drukpa transmissions (and also Nyingma teachings). Such was the case of Sonam Wangchuk, whose biography further suggests that in Dolpo, other advanced meditators also upheld the Drukpa lineage around 1680: one was called Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, and

another one, unmistakably, ’Brug pa rdo rje (1967: 11, 257-260). 32. There were also marital alliances between the royal families of Ladakh and Mustang in the 17th and the 18th century (Petech 1977: 68; 90. Mustang is called Glo-bo). 33. The patronage of Sakya, Drikung or Nyingma traditions in Dolpo and Mustang is already well documented. 34. It is a current practice among historians to ‘correct’ the term dkar brgyud and render it as bka’ brgyud, but such editing of old texts may distort the significance and intent of the original words. 35. “...the districts as far as the gold-mines were brought under his sway, and La-dvags spread and flourished” (Francke 1926: 110) 36. The imposition of the

Tsongkhapa anniversary celebrations onto the ancient fortnight-long Ladakhi Losar festival in some areas of Ladakh could be another example of Lhasa influence. 37. On the excesses of the governors dispatched from Lhasa to Guge and Ruthok in the 19th century and early 20th century, and the resulting flight of the local population, see Bray, forthcoming. 38. This important work awaits a thorough and critical study. Meanwhile the maps at its beginning show many converted monasteries, with obvious conversion of Drukpa shrines after the Mongol War, as in the case of Tashigang, p. 79, Snub bkra shis chos gling, p. 249, etc.) 39. Namgyal Henry, a French scholar preparing a PhD on the Nyingma tradition of the Pin Valley of Spiti (at INALCO, Paris, to be submitted in 2015), pers. com, Dec. 2014. His assumption is based on the religious history of Spiti, on the presence of two stupas associated with the Drukpa yogi Gyalwa Gotsangpa, on the great fame of Rangrik Repa in his native village, etc. The biography of Rangrik Repa shows that in his early years in Spiti (in the 1620s), he trained locally in the Drukpa tradition (RR: 3b). Moreover, in the second half of the 17th century, monks from Spiti enrolled at the Drukpa monastery of Barden in Zangskar (see DNT in Petra Maurer 2015). Also in Spiti, Laurent (2014: 116-117) notes the presence, besides Gelug figures, of many Drukpa masters on the murals of the upper temple of Dangkhar, which were patronized by the king of Ladakh. He interprets that presence as a “political intrusion” enforced by the king in the 18th century “within the saturated dGe lugs pa environment of the Spiti Valley”. However, that ‘saturation’ appears to be only a present-day condition.

40. The fact that Mount Kailash, Pretapuri and other power places were not transferred to Lhasa, as noted above, could probably also explain their sense of satisfaction. 41. This was pointed to me by Dr. Angchuk Munshi, a descendant of the Ladakhi kings’ hereditary officials (p. c. Feb 2013). He explained that no scholar in Ladakh takes literally this passage on the casus belli in the La dwags rgyal rabs. 42. Schwieger (1997) stresses land grants and ownership as a factor of local political organisation. The shared cult of local deities and territorial guardian spirits might be added as another geographic communal marker. 43. See the illustration in the introduction to this volume. 44. Contrary to

what Petech (1977) proposed, the decline of the kingdom may be rather located in the 19th century—and was possibly not unrelated to the exhaustion of gold resources (which probably further ruined West Tibet), besides the historic invasion by the Dogras. 45. A copy of this document is preserved in the Gergan Collection of the British Library (personal communication from John Bray). However, it awaits detailed study. 46. Since the Sixth Taktsang Rinpoche left Ladakh to further his training in Tibet in his youth, the Chinese authorities have prevented him from visiting Ladakh except for two short visits in the 1980s.

Tibetan language sources Anon. 2002. Dar chen. Dharamsala: Nga’ ris spyi mthun tshogs pa. DNT. Ngag dbang tshe ring, ’khrul zhig. 1767. Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa ’khrul zhig rin po che ngag dbang tshe ring gi rnam thar. Delhi: Topden Tsering, 1978. Dung dkar blo bzang phrin las. 2004. Bod rig pa’i tshig mdzod chen mo. Delhi: Sherig Parkhang. Gergan, Joseph [[[Bsod nams]] tshe brtan yo seb dge rgan]. 1976. Bla dvags rgyal rabs ’chi med gter. Edited by S.S. Gergan. New Delhi & Jullundur: Sterling. GD6. sKyabs’gro pa Ma Ni ka. rGyal dbang Adzi ten dra’i rnam par thar pa kun tu bzang po’i yon tan gyi me long. Typescript. Darjeeling, 2010. Karma Gyaltsen (Kar ma rgyal mtshan, Gangs ri zhung). 1996. Bod ljongs stod

mnga’ ris skor gsum nye rabs chab srid kyi lo rgyus ’bel gtam rin chen gter gyi phreng ba. Mnga’ ris srid gros rig gnas lo rgyus bsdu rub U yun lhan khang. Tise. dKon mchog stan ’dzin. 1896. Gangs ri chen po ti se dang mtsho chen ma dros pa bcas kyi sgnon byung gi lo rgyus. PK. Padma dkar po. c. 1580. Gdan sa chen mo Ra lung gi khyad par ’phags pa. gSung ’bum. Vol. 4. Darjeeling: 179-205. PY. Bod khas pa Mi pham dGe legs rNam rgyal. 1667. Rje btsun Grub pa’i dBang phyug Dam pa dPag bsam Ye shes zhabs kyi rNam par thar pa mchog gi spyod tshul rGya mtsho‘i sNying po. MS from Hemis Zimchung private library. RR. Nas lung Ngawang Dorje (late 17thcentury disciple of Rangrik Repa). Rje bstun khyab bdag chen po

Rang rig ras chen gyi gsung mgur dang, zhal gdams’chi med bdud rtsi’i rlabs ’phren. Private xylographic print, Lama Ngawang Norbu; Shashur, Garsha/Lahaul. SG. Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (sDe srid). 1681. bLang dor gsal bar ston pa’i Drang thig dvangs shel me long nyerg cig pa. Woodblock print by Regent sTag brag (r. 1942 52). Lhasa: Zhol par khang. Shakabpa. (Shwa sgab pa, TshedponW.D.). 1976. Bod kyi srid don rgyal rabs. Kalimpong: Shakabpa House. Tashi Rabgias (bKra shis rab rgyas). 1984. Mar yul la dwags kyi sngon rabs kun gsal me long. Leh: C. Namgyal and TsewangTaru. Thrinle Dorje, mKhen Thringa Rinpoche (Dzigar Khenchen). 2013. Don brgyud dpal ldan’brug pa’i mkhas grub bla ma rgya tsho’i rnam thar legs bshad nor bu’i gter mdzod (Jewel Treasure of Elegant Writings:

Biographies of Saint-Scholars of the Drukpa Lineage). 2 Vols. Kathmandu: Khenpo Shedrup Tenzin, GautamVihar. TR. Kun dga’ lhun grub, ’brug pa yongs ’dzin. 1663. Odiyana pa Ngag dbang rgya mtsho’i rnam thar legs bris bairdurya dkar po’i rgyud mang. [[[Taktsang Repa]] Biography] Leh, Ladakh: Central Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2008. Tsering Gyalpo (Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po). 2006. mNga’ ris chos ’byung. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang.

In Western languages Ahmad, Z. 1968. “New Light on the Tibet-Ladakh-Mughal War of 16791684”. East and West 18: 340-61. _______.1999. Sangs-rgyas-mga-mtsho: Life of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. Ardussi, John. 1977. Bhutan before the British. Ph.D. Dissertation. Australian National University. Canberra. Available on: https:// digitalcollections. anu.edu.au /handle /1885/11280. _______.1999. “The Rapprochement between Bhutan and Tibet under the Enlightened Rule of Sde-Srid XIII Shes-Rab-Dbang-Phyug (r. 174463).” Pp 64-83 in Journal of Bhutan Studies 1 (1) 1999, Thimphu. (First published PIATS 7, Graz 1995, Vol. I: Tibetan Studies, Oesterreichische Akademie der

Wissenschaften, Wien 1997) ______. 2005. “Formation of the State of Bhutan (’Brug gzhung) and its Tibetan Antecedents.” Pp. 33-48 in The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet. Edited by Christoph Cüppers. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute. Aris, Michael. 1979. Bhutan: the Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Bellezza, John Vincente 2012. “Selected journal excerpts from the Upper Tibetan Antiquities Expedition (2 Sept, 2002).” Flight of the Khyung (www.tibetarchaeology.com /october-2012/). Bellini, Chiara. 2011. “Examples of Beauty at the Court of Seng ger Namrgyal: the Style of Painting in Ladakh in the 17th and 18th centuries.” Pp. 95116 in Tibetan Art between Past and Present: Studies Dedicated to Luciano Petech. Supplement No. 1 to Rivista degli Studi Orientali 84 (New Series).

Bogin, Benjamin. 2006. “Royal Blood and Political Power: Contrasting Allegiances.” Pp. 7-16 in Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition, Tibet in the 17th and 18th Centuries, Proceedings of the 10th IATS Seminar. Edited by Bryan Cuevas and Kurtis Schaeffer, Laden: Brill. Bray, John. 2012. “Ladakhi and Bhutanese Enclaves in Tibet.” Journal of Bhutan Studies 26, 1: 1-20. ______. Forthcoming. “‘By Ancient Custom and Engagements’: Trade, Taxes and Diplomacy in Ladakh and Western Tibet Between the 17th And 20th Centuries.” In When the Taxman Cometh: Tax, Corvée and Community Obligations in Tibetan Societies, edited by Charles Ramble, Peter Schwieger and Alice Travers. Cüppers, C. 2007. “bsTan ’dzin Chos rgyal’s Bhutan Legal Code of 1729 in Comparison with sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho’s Guidelines for Government Officials.” Pp. 45-52 in Bhutan: Traditions and Changes,

edited by John A. Ardussi & Françoise Pommaret. Leiden: Brill. Dargyay, E. 1987. “The Dynasty of Bzang-la (Zanskar, West Tibet) and its Chronology: a Reconsideration”. Pp. 13–32 in Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, edited by C. Beckwith. Bloomington, Indiana: Tibet Society Dughlat, Muhammad Mirza Haidar. 1895. Tarikh-i-Rashidi. A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia. Translated by E. Denison Ross. Edited with a commentary by Ney Elias. London: Low Marston. Eaton, M. Richard. 2000. “Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States.” Pp. 94-132 in Essays on Islam and Indian History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ehrhard, Karl Franz. 1994. “Tibetan Sources on Muktinath: Individual

Reports and Normative Guides.”Ancient Nepal134: 23–41. Emmer, Gerhard. 2007. “Dga’ ldan tshe dbang dpal bzang po and the TibetLadakh-Mughal War of 1679-84”. Pp. 81-107 in The Mongolia-Tibet Interface. Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia, edited by Uradyn E. Bulag & Hildegard G.M. Diemberger. Leiden: Brill. ______. 1998. “Sa-’dul dgon-pa: A Temple at the Crossroads of Jumla, Dolpo and Mustang”. Ancient Nepal 140: 3-19. ______. 2002. “The Register of the Reliquary of Lord Ra-Rig Ras-pa.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 46: 146-167. ______. 2006. “Review of Himalayan Hermitess: The Life of a Tibetan Buddhist Nun, by Kurtis R. Schaeffer.” Journal of the International Association

of Tibetan Studies 2. www.thlib.org?tid=T2727 (accessed October 4, 2014). Faggionato, Christian. 2015. “The History of the dGe lugs pa in the Nubra Valley”. In this issue. Desideri, Ippolito. 1937. An Accountof Tibet: the Travels of Ippolito Desideri (1712-1727), edited by Filippo de Filippi. London: G. Routledge & Sons. Francke, A.H. 1914a. Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Vol.1. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. ______.1914b. “Historical Documents from the Borders of Tibet.” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1909. Calcutta: 104-112. ______. 1926. Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Vol.2. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. Halkias, Georgios T. 2009. “Until the Feathers

of the Winged Black Raven Turn White: Sources for the Tibet-Bashahr Treaty of 1679.” Pp. 61-86 in Mountains, Monasteries and Mosques. Recent Research on Ladakh and the Western Himalaya. Edited by John Bray & Elena de Rossi Filibeck. Supplement No. 2 to Rivista degli Studi Orientali 80 (New Series). Huber, Toni. 2008. The Holy Land Reborn: Pilgrimage & the Tibetan Reinvention of Buddhist India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Huber, T. & Tsepak Rigzin. 1999. “A Tibetan Guide for Pilgrimage to Ti-se (Mount Kailas) and mtsho Ma-pham (Lake Manasarovar)”. Pp. 124-153 in Sacred Spaces and Powerful Places in Tibetan Culture. Dharamsala: LTWA. Jahoda, Christian. 2009. “Spiti and Ladakh in the 17th-19th Centuries: Views from the Periphery”. Pp. 45-59 in Mountains, Monasteries and Mosques. Recent Research on Ladakh and the Western Himalaya. Edited by John Bray & Elena de Rossi

Filibeck. Supplement No. 2 to Rivista degli Studi Orientali 80 (New Series). Karma Rigzin. 2011. The Fourth Je Khenpo, Damcho Pekar. www. treasuryoflives.org / biographies/ view/ Je-Khenpo-04-Damcho-Pekar/7676 Karmay, Samten G. (trans). 2014. The Illusive Play. The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Chicago: Serindia Publications. Laurent, Lobsang Nyima. 2014. “The Upper Temple of Dangkhar Monastery, Iconographical Capharnaüm or Political Manoeuvre?”Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 29, Avril 2014, pp. 103-153. Linrothe, Rob. 2015 a. “Site Unseen: Approaching a Royal Buddhist Monument of Zangskar (Western Himalayas).” In this issue.

_____. 2015 b. “Siddhas and Sociality: A Seventeenth-Century Lay Illustrated Buddhist Manuscript in Kumik Village, Zangskar.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 32. Lo Bue, E. 2007. “The Guru lhakhang at Phyidbang. A mid-15th Century Temple in Central Ladakh”. Pp. 175-196 in Discoveries in Western Tibet and the Western Himalayas, edited by Amy Heller & Giacomella Orofino. Leiden: Brill. Maurer, Petra. 2015. “Isn’t Life Miserable? The Youth of the Yogin Ngawang Tshering from Ladakh”. In this issue. Nawang Jinpa. Forthcoming.The Drukpa Heritage of Ladakh. Delhi. NIRLAC. 2008. Legacy of a Mountain People: Inventory of Cultural Resources of Ladakh. 4 vols. Delhi: Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture. Petech, Luciano. 1939. A Study on the Chronicles of Ladakh. Calcutta: Calcutta Oriental Press. _____.1947. “The Tibetan-Ladakhi-Moghul War of 1681-83.” Indian Historical

Quarterly 23: 169-199. _____. 1977. The Kingdom of Ladakh (c.950-1842 A.D.). Roma: Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente. ______. 1988. “The ’Bri gung pa Sect in Western Tibet and Ladakh.” Pp. 355-368 in Selected Papers on Asian History. Rome: IsMEO. ______. 1997. “Western Tibet. Historical Introduction.” Pp. 229-256 in Tabo. A Lamp for the Kingdom. Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya, edited by Deborah Klimburg-Salter. Milan: Shira Editore. Richardson, H. E. 1958-1959. “The Karma-pa Sect, a Historical Note.”Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 89, 3-4:139-164; 90, 1-2, 1-18). Roerich, George N. (Trans) 1953. The Blue Annals. Vol 2. Calcutta Asiatic Society.

Schaeffer, K. 2004. Himalayan Hermitess. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schuh, Dieter. 1983a. “Zu den Hintergründen der Parteinahme Ladakh’s für Bhutan im Kreig gegen Lhasa.” Pp. 37-50 in Recent Research on Ladakh, edited by Detlef Kantowksy & Reinhard Sander. Munich: Weltforum Verlag. ______.1983b. “Frühe Beziehungen zwischen dem ladakhischen Herrscherhaus und der südlichen ’Brug-pa Schule.” Pp. 27-68 in Archiv für Zentralasiatisiche Geschichtsforschung. Heft 1-6, edited by Dieter Schuh and Michael Weiers. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.

Schwieger, Peter. 1996. “Stag tshang ras pa’s Exceptional Life as a Pilgrim.” Kailash Vol. 18: 81-107. _____. 1997. “Power and Territory in the Kingdom of Ladakh.” Pp 427-434 in Recent Research on Ladakh 7, edited by Thierry Dodin & Heinz Räther. Ulm: Ulmer Kulturanthropologische Schriften 9, Universität Ulm ______. 2010. “Khams after the Establishment of the dGa’-ldan pho-brang Government in the 17th Century.” International Association of Tibetan Studies 2010, Conference Abstracts. www.douban.com/group/topic/ 13467279/ _____. 2011. “The Long Arm of the Fifth Dalai Lama: Influence and Power of the Fifth Dalai Lama in Southeast Tibet.” Pp. 239-257 in Buddhist Himalaya: Studies in Religion, History and Culture Vol. 1, edited by Alex McKay and Anna Balikci-Denjongpa. Gangtok: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. Shakabpa, Tsepon W.D. 1984 (1967). Tibet. A Political History. New York:

Potala Publications. Shakspo, Nawang Tsering. 2012. A Cultural History of Ladakh. 2nd edition. Sabu (Ladakh): Centre of Research on Ladakh. Smith, E. Gene. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts. Somerville: Wisdom. Snellgrove, David. 1967. Four Lamas of Dolpo: Tibetan Biographies. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer. Snellgrove, David and Skorupski, Tadeusz. 1977. The Cultural Heritage of Ladakh. Vol. 1. Warminster: Aris and Phillips/Delhi: Vikas. Templeman, David, 2012. “The 17th century gTsang Rulers and Their Strategies of Legitimation”. Pp. 65-78 in Studies on the History and Literature of Tibet and the Himalaya, edited by Roberto Vitali. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications. Tsering Gyalpo, Guge. 2011. Mural Paintings in Wa-chen

Cave in Western Tibet. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. Tucci, Giuseppe. 1940. Travels of Tibetan Pilgrims in the Swat Valley. Calcutta: The Greater India Society ______. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. 3 vols. Rome: La Libreriadel Stato. van Schaik, S. 2011. Tibet: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Vinding, M., 1988. “A History of Thak Khola Valley in Nepal.” Kailash 14: 167-211.

Vitali, Roberto. 1996. The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang according to mNga’.ris rgyal.rabs by Gu.ge mkhan.chen Ngag.dbang grags.pa. Dharamsala: Tho.ling.gtsug.lha.khang.lo.gcig.stong ’khor.ba’i.rjes.dran.mdzad sgo’i go.sgrig tshogs chung. _____. 1999. Records of Tho-Ling. Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute. _____. 2003. “A Chronology (bstan rtsis) of Events in the History of mNga’ ris sKor gsum (Tenth-fifteenth centuries)”. Pp. 53-89 in History of Tibet, Vol II. Edited by Alex Mc Kay. London: Routledge Curzon. _____. 2004. “Glimpses of the History of the rGya Clan.” Pp. 6-20 in Proceedings of the 1st International Seminar on Bhutanese Studies. Thimphu. _____. 2012. The Dge-lugs-pa in Gu Ge and the Western

Himalaya (Early 15th-late 17th Century). Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute. Wessels, C. 1924. Early Jesuit Travellers in Central Asia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. _____. C. 1937. “Introduction” to An Account of Tibet, by Ippolito Desideri (see above). Xiong Lei. 2003. “Unravelling the mysteries of Guge.” Beijing: China Daily May 8, 2003. Yonten Dargye & Sørensen P. 2008. Play of the Omniscient: Life and Works of Jamgon Ngawang Gyaltshen, An Eminent 17th-18th Century Drukpa Master. Thimpu: National Library & Archives of Bhutan. Zeisler, Bettina. 2009-2010. “East of the Moon and West of the Sun? Approaches to a Land with Many Names, North of Ancient India and South of Khotan.” Pp. 371-463 in The Earth-Ox Papers, edited by Roberto Vitali. Tibet Journal 34, 3–35, 2.