Making the State on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier: Chinese Expansion and Local Power in Batang, 1842-1939 William M. Coleman, IV Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2014 © 2013 William M. Coleman, IV All rights reserved Abstract Making the State on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier: Chinese Expansion and Local Power in Batang, 1842-1939 William M. Coleman, IV This dissertation analyzes the process of state building by Qing imperial representatives and Republican state officials in Batang, a predominantly ethnic Tibetan region located in southwestern Sichuan Province. Utilizing Chinese provincial and national level archival materials and Tibetan language works, as well as French and American missionary records and publications, it explores how Chinese state expansion evolved in response to local power and has three primary arguments. First, by the mid-nineteenth century, Batang had developed an identifiable structure of local governance in which native chieftains, monastic leaders, and imperial officials shared power and successfully fostered peace in the region for over a century. Second, the arrival of French missionaries in Batang precipitated a gradual expansion of imperial authority in the region, culminating in radical Qing military intervention that permanently altered local understandings of power. While short-lived, centrally-mandated reforms initiated soon thereafter further integrated Batang into the Qing Empire, thereby demonstrating the viability of New Policy reforms and challenging the idea that the late Qing was a failed state. Finally, I posit that despite almost two decades of political, economic, and social upheaval in the post-Qing period, Nationalist officials’ ability to repel central Tibetan attempts to assert their authority over Batang while effectively denying multiple movements for autonomous self-rule by local Batang political activists who were also Nationalist Party representatives directly contributed to Batang’s incorporation into the Nationalist state. This analysis of Batang’s transition from an imperial domain of the Qing Empire to a county in the newly created province of Xikang in 1939 highlights China’s desultory and still incomplete transition from empire to nation. Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..ii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………...v Dates……………………………………………………………………………………………...vi Notes on Transliteration……………………………………………………………………........vii Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………ix Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1 Chapter Two: Batang’s Early History……………………………………………………………32 Chapter Three: Batang’s Missionary Cases……………………………………………………...90 Chapter Four: Batang in the Late Qing: Reform and Rebellion……………………………...190 Chapter Five: Batang in a New Era: Political Restructuring, Economic Reform, and Social Transformation…………………………………………………………………261 Chapter Six: Batang in the Republican Period: Political Instability, Self-Rule, and State Integration……………………………………………………………………...368 Chapter Seven: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..475 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………488 i Acknowledgements A dissertation is rarely the product of one mind, and this one is no different. I cannot but begin by breaking with convention to thank my wife, Asuka, for her unwavering support that has seen this project begin in a sun-drenched seminar room at the University of Hawai’i many years ago, move to the learned halls of Columbia University, absorb the demands of professional diplomacy across the globe, and reach its present form in northeast China. Her constant encouragement and good humor has been my source of inspiration. I would also like to extend my sincerest gratitude to Madeleine Zelin, my advisor. Through an unexpectedly long writing process, she has always offered insightful guidance, pushing me to connect local events in a far-flung corner of the Sino-Tibetan frontier to larger historical trends and ideas. Robert Barnett has also been a steadfast supporter of my research since I arrived at Columbia, and I cannot overstate how important his mentorship has been. I have been very fortunate to benefit from rich interactions with many other Columbia University professors and scholars, including Karen Barkey, who introduced me to the value of comparative studies; Gray Tuttle, whose scholarship demonstrates the importance of Tibet to our understandings of modern China; Sherry Ortner (now at UCLA), who showed me Tibet from its other borders; Carol Gluck, who was instrumental in bringing me to New York; Robert Hymes, whose historiographical acumen continues to amaze me; Michael Tsin (now at UNC Chapel Hill), who opened my eyes to the richness of modern Chinese history; and the late Pei-yi Wu, who pretended to love my strange classical texts from the Sino-Tibetan frontier as much as I did. I also wish to thank the entire staff of the C.V. Starr East Asian Library for their research assistance during my time at Columbia. ii This project began in Hawai’i, and my intellectual debt to Dru Gladney is immense. Dru was the ideal M.A. advisor whose introduction to the intricacies of anthropological theory continues to shape my thinking. Thanks to his ever-present encouragement, I am not only a better thinker; I am also a better surfer. Harry Lamley, also at Hawai’i, provided important feedback in this project’s early stages, for which I am grateful. I also had the great fortune to benefit from the wisdom of the late E. Gene Smith, whose infectious passion for the study of Tibet knew no bounds. I would be remiss not to thank the many language teachers that have given me access to the beautiful worlds of Chinese and Tibetan history. I am particularly indebted to Xu Long, Tenzin Norbu, Xia Jing, Rose Shen, Wang Sulan, Zhang Xuyin, and Yao Weili. Over the years this project has developed I have benefitted from many other people around the world, including (in rough geographic order): Fabio Lanza, Georgia Mickey, Ian Miller, Kwang-kyoon Yeo, David Atwill, Marielle Prins, AS, LT, Yanglin Dorje, Qin Heping, Lang Weiwei, Chen Bo, Douglas Wissing, Alex Gardner, Robert Bare, Michael Graham, and Stephen Sears. My thanks for their contributions, direct and indirect, are deeply heartfelt. I would also like to acknowledge the numerous organizations that provided financial support for research related to this project, including the U.S. Department of Education, the Social Science Research Council, the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University, and the American Historical Association. And finally, I would like to thank my parents, Bill and Linda Coleman, for raising me with the curiosity to explore the world while not forgetting where I come from. iii For Asuka, who has always had faith iv List of Abbreviations BTXZ Batang xianzhi (巴塘县志) JJD Jiaowu jiaoan dang (教務教案檔) KPDM Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so’i lo rgyus gsal bar bshad pa thub bstan gsal ba’i me long zhes bya ba bshugs, vol. 2 QCBDS Qingmo Chuan Dian bianwu dang’an shiliao (清末川滇边务档案史料) QSL Da Qing lichao shilu (大清歷朝實錄) QZZ Qingdai Zangshi zoudu (清代藏事奏牘) v Dates I present all dates first in the Julian solar calendar. I record Chinese date references following the Chinese lunar calendar with reign name first, followed by the year, month, and day. For example, GX 1.2.23 is the Chinese lunar calendar rendering for March 30, 1875. An asterisk (*) after a lunar calendar date indicates it occurred during an intercalary month. I use the following abbreviations for Qing imperial reign names: SZ Shunzhi (1644-1661) KX Kangxi (1662-1722) YZ Yongzheng (1723-1735) QL Qianlong (1736-1795) JQ Jiaqing (1796-1820) DG Daoguang (1821-1850) XF Xianfeng (1851-1861) TZ Tongzhi (1862-1874) GX Guangxu (1875-1907) XT Xuantong (1908-1911) vi Notes on Transliteration For the purposes of this work, I have transliterated Tibetan terms and proper nouns that appear in the body of this dissertation in such a way as to render them easily pronounceable to English speakers. Upon the first appearance of a Tibetan term or proper noun, I have included a transliteration of the word according to the Wylie Transliteration System following it in parenthesis.1 I have also transliterated Tibetan terms and proper nouns in Tibetan language works that appear in footnotes and/or the bibliography according to the Wylie system unless the author(s) have provided alternative English transliterations. I have transliterated Chinese terms, place names, and personal names according to the standard Hanyu Pinyin system (漢語拼音), except in such cases where other transliterations are more familiar, such as Sun Yat-sen (孫中山). Chinese characters appear in parenthesis after the first occurrence of proper nouns and key words or phrases that may be best understood in the original language. Chinese does not have a standard method to transliterate Tibetan terms, place names, or personal names. As a result, it is not always clear to what object, location, or person a Chinese author may be referring when he transliterates Tibetan into Chinese. When the original Tibetan term or place name to which a Chinese transliteration refers is indisputable, I use the Tibetan term or place name, except in some cases when the Chinese term or place name occurs more commonly in discourse of the time. When the original Tibetan term or place name is uncertain, I retain the Chinese transliteration of the term or place name. Although