The Sacred Federation of Tibet and the Mongol Empire

Abstract

This article re-examines the history of the Mongol Empire’s rule over Tibet, analyzing the complex institutional and religious relationships between the Mongol Empire and Tibet from an innovative perspective. We find that, unlike its military conquests in other parts of the world, the Mongol Empire actually formed a kind of federation with Tibet based on Buddhism. The Mongol Empire embraced Tibetan Buddhism as its state religion and venerated the head of the Sakya school as a spiritual guide. Concurrently, the establishment of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs in the Mongol capital served as a nominal governing body over Tibet, while in reality, it ensured a significant degree of autonomy for the region. Furthermore, the leaders of the Mongol Empire felt endowed with the legitimacy to conquer the world after being blessed by Tibetan Buddhism as Mahakala, the dark incarnation of Avalokiteshvara. In addition, the article also provides a detailed account of the prosperity of Buddhism within the Mongol Empire, in terms of its economic, artistic, and philosophical aspects. The discovery of this evidence is of great significance, since it not only supports reinterpretation of the historical evolution of the Mongol Empire and Tibet, but also allows us to observe the status of Tibetan Buddhism in the Mongol Empire from a new perspective, and to explore the unexpected institutional innovations of the federation reflected in the Mongol-Tibetan relationship.

1. Introduction

In the 13th century, the Mongol Empire expanded its dominion through formidable military campaigns, creating an extensive federal empire that spanned the Eurasian continent (Sugiyama 2015, 2017). Almost eight centuries later, this monumental federation seems to have faded into the mists of oblivion. Yet, there lies a book named the Compendium of Chronicles (Jami’ al-tawarikh) recording this period of history, authored by Rashid al-Din Hamadani, quietly resting within the hallowed halls of the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, Turkey. To a certain extent, the history of the Mongol Empire recorded in this tome could be regarded as the first world history. It chronicles the trade, diplomacy, and military engagements between the various khanates within the empire’s dominion, while the khanates took nearly the entirety of the Eurasian continent, by force, from the Eastern European steppes to the Altai Mountains, from Baghdad to Korea, into the vast network of the Mongol Empire. However, the Mongol Empire’s approach to integrating Tibet was distinct; it was not through conquest but through an agreed-upon contract based on a “mutual consensus” (Crocenzi 2019, p. 108), a contractual rights exchange centered on Tibetan Buddhism and the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs (Allsen 1983; Buell 2011; Crocenzi 2019), effectively incorporating Tibet into the empire’s federal system (Kuzmin 2012; Soni 2013; Sugiyama 2015, 2017). In religious matters, the Mongol Empire embraced Tibetan Buddhism as its state religion and held the leader of the Sakya sect in high esteem, considering him as a spiritual teacher (Baumann 2022; Buell 2011; Wolff 2010). In administrative matters, while Tibet was nominally under the jurisdiction of an office in Beijing, the capital of the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty, it was granted considerable autonomy. Additionally, the arrangement demonstrated an innovative aspect of federal politics through the establishment of the Xuanzheng Yuan, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs in Beijing (Franke 1981; Fritz 2016; Van der Kuijp 2004; Ma 2022; Wylie 1977), which served as the governing body representing an organic combination of territorial and non-territorial governance. Examining this historical process provides a deeper understanding of the sacred federal structure between Tibet and the Mongol Empire and underscores the pivotal role of Tibetan Buddhism within it. Furthermore, it sheds light on a pioneering political model: the combination of territorial and non-territorial federal arrangements, which offers an adaptable framework for the coexistence and diversity of various ethnicities and religions.

This study is highly innovative because it not only reinterprets the history of the Mongol Empire’s rule in Tibet but also further analyzes this rule from an institutionalist perspective, viewing it as a relationship akin to a confederation or federation. The bond that formed this federation was religion—Tibetan Buddhism. By reviewing this history, we gain a deeper understanding of the subtle and complex political and religious relationship between Tibet and the Mongol Empire, which helps to resolve and clarify some confusions about why Tibet was so unique within the empire’s domain and why Tibetan Buddhism and lamas enjoyed an exalted status within it. In the Section 2 of this article, we will recount the history of the Mongol Empire’s conquest of Tibet and how a mutually beneficial contract, based on consent, defined the religious and secular rights of both parties. In the Section 3, we discuss the spread and influence of Tibetan Buddhism within the empire and how it sanctified the rule of the Mongol Empire while maintaining local autonomy and diversity. In the Section 4, we describe the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs, a key institution for governing Tibet, and how it served as a political arrangement ahead of its time that offered a federal model that combines non-territorial autonomy with territorial governance. In the Section 5, we present the conclusions of the article.

2. The Sacred Federation of Mongol and Tibet Through Tibetan Buddhism

2.1. The Governance of Tibet by the Mongol Empire

Genghis Khan and his successors spearheaded the Mongolian army’s expansion across the Eurasian continent, subjugating vast swathes of territory. The Tibetan Plateau gradually fell under the gaze of the Mongol Empire’s conquest ambitions. In 1240, Godan Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan and son of Ogedai Khan, the reigning Great Khan of Mongolia, initiated the first Tibetan conquest campaign (Atwood 2014; Choi 2022; Gangopadhyay 1992; Haw 2014). Under the leadership of general Doorda Darkhan, a subordinate of Godan Khan, Mongol forces traversed Qinghai and penetrated northern Tibet, specifically the vicinity of Lhasa, where they burned down the Reting Monastery (Rwa-sgreng, constructed in 1056) and the Gyel Lhakhang Monastery (Rgyal-lha-khang, constructed in 1012) (Wylie 1977). Facing resistance, the Mongol Empire inflicted casualties exceeding 500, including a Buddhist master named Se-ston (Fan 1992, p. 16). Due to the initial opposition and the formidable geographical challenges of Tibet, Godan Khan hesitated on the exorbitant costs of military governance. Consequently, in 1244, based on preliminary assessments and consultations, Godan Khan opted to extend an invitation to the leader of the Sakya school, Sakya Pandita, possessing significant political and religious sway in Tibet at the time, as recounted in A History of Tibet by the Fifth Dalai Lama, to journey to Liangzhou (modern-day Wuwei, Gansu), endeavoring to establish Mongol authority over Tibet through diplomatic channels. Documented in the Godan’s Order to Summoning Sagya Pandita in Sajia Lineage History (Püntsok and Chen 2015; Sönam 1989), Godan Khan expressed his offer: “In gratitude to my ancestors and the heavens, I seek a mentor to illuminate my path. I choose you... I entrust you to govern the western monastic community”. Faced with the Mongol Empire’s formidable military prowess, Sakya Pandita acceded to the summons out of necessity, while also seizing the opportunity to bolster his influence amidst Tibet’s diverse regions ruled by other schools like Gelug, Kagyu, and Nyingma (Franke 1981). His attendance at the meeting with Godan Khan was accompanied by his nephews, Phagpa and Chakna Dorje (Apple 2014). Phagpa would go on to become the religious teacher of the Mongol royal family, and Chakna Dorje later cemented the Mongolia-Tibet alliance through marriage to Godan Khan’s daughter, both contributing significantly to the enduring bond between the two regions.

Negotiations with the Mongol Empire underscored the delineation of rights and obligations between the two parties, focusing on the non-military subjugation of Tibet while safeguarding the interests of various Tibetan schools (Buell 2011). The necessity for a “negotiated compromise” in the distribution of powers and existential guarantees is a hallmark of federalism (Hueglin 2013, p. 39). Following the negotiation, Sakya Pandita in 1247 penned a missive to the Tibetan monastic and lay leadership, known as Sakya Pandita’s Letter to Tibetan People. In this correspondence, he declared Tibet’s status as a territory of the Mongol Empire and detailed the appointment of Sakya school and other officers by Godan Khan to co-govern Tibet (Jiawei and Gyaincain 2009). The letter elucidated the systems imposed by the Mongol Empire on Tibet, including the presentation of atlases, official appointments, and tribute requirements, all of which are pivotal for understanding the analogous federal relationship between Tibet and the Mongol Empire. Regarding official appointments, the letter indicated that existing Tibetan tribal officials could retain their positions and be reappointed by the Sakya school as Darughachi, an official in charge of taxes and administration, with political matters discussed in the interest of all living beings by local chiefs and Sakya (Jigme 2020). Regarding taxation and labor services, they were “to be levied by the Mongols, seconded by Sakya officials” (Choi 2022, p. 802). The treaty also acknowledged that taxes in Tibet were lighter compared to those of the Mongols themselves (Wolff 2010). This asymmetrical contract, advantageous to Tibet, reflected a respect for the region’s autonomy and religious affairs. According to Pelletier (2009, p. 476), an asymmetrical contract “is not merely compatible with the federal principle; it is intrinsic to federalism”. In 1264, Kublai Khan even issued an edict affirming the Buddhist church’s exemption from taxes (Wolff 2010). Overall, the Mongol Empire maintained significant autonomy for local Tibetan forces, preserving the existing ruling structure in areas such as officialdom, taxation, and religion, while only exerting the central government’s authority over Tibet at the central governance level, actually overlaying a federal or confederal framework onto the pre-existing social and administrative structures of Tibet. In fact, prior to Tibet’s conquest, the Mongol Empire’s federal system was already established. All the khanates, including those of Chinese, Inner Asian, Russian, and Persian origin, were “incorporated into a federal system headquartered in Khara Khorum”, with a Mongol governor and a garrison at his disposal to maintain control (Wolff 2010, p. 8). Through a combination of diplomacy and military conquest, the Mongol Empire constructed a vast federal empire across the Eurasian continent (Sugiyama 2015, 2017). This time, by entering into a “mutual consensus” contract with Tibet (Crocenzi 2019, p. 108), the Mongol Empire integrated Tibet also into its federal system.

Following the death of Sakya Pandita at the Huanhua Monastery in Liangzhou in 1251, Mongke Khan, who subsequently ascended to become the fourth Khan of the Mongol Empire, initiated a new military campaign in parts of Tibet during 1252–53 (Haw 2014). Subsequently, Mongke granted the majority of the Chinese and Tibetan territories to his younger brother, Kublai Khan, who was later enthroned as the fifth Khan of the Mongol Empire. At this juncture, Sakya Pandita’s nephew, Phagpa, had assumed leadership of the Sakya school and in 1253, he engaged in discussions with Kublai Khan (Sönam 1989). After the demise of Mongke, the Mongol Empire transitioned into a more decentralized federation, with the Yuan Dynasty at its nominal helm and several other significant khanates, including the Golden Horde, the Chagatai Khanate, the short-lived Ogedai Khanate, and the Ilkhanate (Biran 2013; Wolff 2010). Although Kublai Khan was still recognized as the Khan of the Mongol Empire, his reign predominantly followed the model of a khan/monarch leading the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty and lacked actual control over other Khanates.

Kublai Khan held Phagpa in high esteem and sought for an initiation to be bestowed by the Hevajra tantra consecration, a religious rite that symbolizes that the person being initiated has received the approval of the master (Apple 2014). It could also be used during a monarch’s accession ceremony. In Tibetan Buddhist tradition, when a disciple receives initiation, he must demonstrate utmost respect to his spiritual teacher, often through physical gestures and offerings, including presenting a khata (a traditional scarf) and requesting a blessing by the teacher’s touch on the head. However, during the initiation ceremony for Kublai Khan, disagreements arose over the posture and seating arrangement that would signify the relative status of the religious and political leaders. The dispute was ultimately resolved through the intervention of Empress Chabi, leading to an agreement:

“i. That while giving religious discourse, and also at small gatherings the lama [Phagpa] would sit in the centre on the prominent throne. ii. At a large gathering of royal blood, including his brothers-in-law, lesser chieftains and the public, the king [Kublai] would sit on the prominent throne in the centre to ensure the maintenance of order. iii. With regard to Tibetan affairs, the king would honour every word of the lama, indeed the king was not even allowed to give an order without first consulting him. iv. However, in other matters of lesser importance, to prevent anyone taking advantage of the lama’s great compassion and to maintain a position of domination over the people, the lama was not to interfere with the king’s administration”.

(Tsering 2011, p. 66)

Subsequently, Kublai Khan, along with his wife and children, received the initiation from Phagpa and honored him with the titles State Preceptor (Guoshi), and the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma. He promulgated the Tibetan Edict (Zangwen zhaoshu/vjav sa bod yig ma), formalizing the patron–priest relationship, acknowledging Phagpa as his spiritual guide, and later proclaiming Tibetan Buddhism as the state religion. This practice was followed by subsequent emperors of the Yuan Dynasty, each having a high lama as their spiritual mentor (Buell 2011; Wolff 2010), establishing a precedent for the Mongol royal family’s relationship with Tibetan Buddhist leaders. The relationship was characterized by a dual dynamic: in religious matters, they were teacher and student, while in state affairs, they were sovereign and subject, with the Khan holding a superior position. When it came to Tibetan matters, the Khan was expected to consult with Tibetan Buddhist leaders, but they were not to meddle in other state affairs. This arrangement created a unique bond between the secular power of the Mongol Empire and the Sakya school of Tibet, akin to “mchod yon,” the patron–priest relationship (Baumann 2022, p. 682), which set the stage for the special relationship between the Manchu emperor and the Tibetan lamas in later historical periods. “Patronage was contingent upon services rendered” (Baumann 2022, p. 682), for instance, Kublai Khan provided substantial support to Phagpa. As Jiawei and Gyaincain (2009, p. 41) remark, it included “kasaya [(the clothing of Buddhist monks)] adorned with gold and pearls, long sleeveless jackets, jewel-encrusted utensils, Buddhist robes, hats, boots and cushions, plus one large gold ingot, four large silver ingots, riding beasts, mules and golden saddles... 56 large silver ingots, 200 bags of tea and 110 bolts of brocade.” The lama, while fulfilling the religious needs of the patron, also accepted the patron’s military protection and, in turn, assumed administrative roles within the imperial court, overseeing Tibetan secular affairs (Crocenzi 2019; Wolff 2010; Wylie 1977). Thus, although some historians have depicted the relationship between Kublai Khan and Phagpa as an exemplary patron–priest dynamic, initially, it was more accurately a relationship between a ruler and his subject (Wylie 1977, p. 11).

2.2. The Federalization of Tibet by Mongol Empire Through Contract

Starting with the relationship between Kublai Khan and Phagpa, the integration of Tibet into the Mongol Empire was facilitated through a dual approach that addressed both religious and administrative domains. In the realm of religious ideology, the appointment of Phagpa as the State Preceptor not only elevated him and his Sakya sect as the leading spiritual authority in Tibet but also established Buddhism as the official religion of the Mongol Empire, leading to its widespread propagation. As recorded in The story of Altan Khan (Aletan han zhuan), “Kublai Khan was celebrated for inviting Lama Phagpa to promote the Buddhist faith and bring peace and prosperity to the empire, akin to the legendary Holy Chakravartin of the past” (Zhurongga 2014, pp. 4–5). On the administrative front, in 1264, Kublai Khan officially established the Bureau of General Regulation (Zongzhi Yuan), later renamed as the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs (Xuanzheng Yuan), an agency dedicated to overseeing Buddhist and Tibetan affairs throughout the empire (Van der Kuijp 2004). Phagpa, who held the title of State Preceptor, also served as the director of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs. Concurrently, Phagpa was dispatched to Tibet by the imperial court with the Pearl Edict (Zhenzhu Zhaoshu) issued by the Mongols. This edict was instrumental in persuading local Tibetan leaders to accept Mongol governance (Wolff 2010). It led to the appointment of Sakya Bzang-po, a trusted Sakya ally and long-serving figure, as the Mongol-endorsed Tibetan great administrator “dpon-chen”. The Pearl Edict contained directives for the monks to adhere to the law, preach and study the Dharma without interference from the laity, ensuring a peaceful religious community. It also emphasized the monks’ obedience to the master’s decree, underscoring Phagpa’s supreme authority among the Tibetan clergy and Kublai Khan’s unwavering confidence in his leadership, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between religious and secular powers, with the Mongol Empire maintaining a strong yet flexible control over Tibet, respecting its religious autonomy while asserting political dominance.

Under the system established by Kublai Khan and Phagpa, extensive interactions were fostered with Buddhist and lay leaders from various regions, culminating in the resolution of a period of sectarian rivalry in Tibet and the establishment of a political framework that positioned Tibet as a subordinate entity within the Mongol Empire (Kuzmin 2012; Soni 2013). This arrangement bore the characteristics of a quasi-federation, with constituent bodies possessing a significant degree of autonomy. Federations have been defined by later scholars as systems that enable self-rule as autonomy and shared rule under federal governance, where multiple tiers of government partake in a division of specific rights and responsibilities within an overarching federal structure (Elazar 1987, 1997; Hueglin 1999). The Mongol Empire’s own structure closely resembled a federal system (Wolff 2010), and within this quasi-federal framework with Tibet, the Mongol Empire clearly held a superior position, forming the overarching federal government. The federal relationship between the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty and Tibet was more intricate due to the interplay of administrative powers and the status of Tibetan lamas as spiritual mentors to the Yuan rulers (Franke 1981; Tsering 2011). Despite this complexity, Tibet, as a federal entity, enjoyed enhanced local autonomy within both the Mongol Empire and the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty. This autonomy was secured through agreements and negotiations with the Mongol Empire. As Crocenzi (2019, p. 108) notes, “the political integration of Tibet into the imperial space was grounded on mutual consensus”. Compared to other constituent units of the Mongol Empire, Tibet held more asymmetrical rights, as previously highlighted in Sakya Pandita’s correspondence that military service and taxes in Tibet were lighter. This asymmetric power was also evident in the appointment of local officials. In contrast to other provinces where the Mongol Empire wielded absolute authority in official appointments, the selection process in Tibet involved a dual system of local recommendation and central review. The Sakya rulers of Tibet, who were also the emperor’s spiritual mentors, such as Sakya Pandita and Phagpa, could propose candidates for the position of high official (dpon-chen) in charge of Tibetan affairs to the emperor. Dpon-chen governed all the regional lords whose establishment and endorsement also required the input and recommendation of the Sakya regime, followed by the Yuan emperor’s confirmation. The central government retained the ultimate authority in official appointments, yet Tibet maintained considerable autonomy in the selection and recommendation process. According to Requejo and Sanjaume-Calvet (2022), vertical checks and balances between local and central authorities are essential components of a modern federal system. A federal system’s advantage lies in its facilitation of a dual confirmation process, which helps to prevent the central authority’s erosion over local institutions (Elazar 1985; Hueglin 2006). During the Yuan Dynasty, a relationship of mutual checks was formed between the Tibetan region and the central court, as both parties were required to collaborate in the official appointment process, ensuring neither could unilaterally appoint officials.

Echoing Elazar’s (1987) conceptualization of a federation as stemming from medieval “foedus”, which implies a sacred contract witnessed by a divine entity, the federation between the Mongol Empire and Tibet aligns well with this pattern. This alignment is evident in several aspects: Firstly, the political union between the two entities was forged through a contractual agreement. During the Mongol conquest of Tibet, instead of dismantling the existing complex, contract-based feudal governance, the Mongols chose to preserve the monastic estates. This decision was strategic, aimed at ensuring the stability of the region and the well-being of its people, as well as safeguarding the educational and welfare roles provided by the Buddhist Sakya (Fritz 2016). Tibet, as a constituent of the Mongol Empire, exhibited a federal structure itself. It was composed of various Buddhist sects, each enjoying considerable autonomy within its own domain. The four major sects—the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug—formed not only the monastic but also “the bureaucratic structure of the Tibetan society and state” (Michael 1991, p. 79). Secondly, the political union was signed in the presence of some religious divinity; Tibetan Buddhism is a sophisticated form of Tantra. The fragile ecological environment of Tibet, along with the population, economic, and cultural systems that have emerged from it, form the core of its politics. This political system is both fragmented and fragile, to the extent that it must rely internally on religious and political means to maintain power, while also having to deal with complex pressures and competition from the outside. After the decline of the powerful Tibetan Empire (618–842), Buddhism integrated elements from the shamanistic Bon religion to form Tibetan Buddhism, which facilitated the emergence of numerous sects, each with a defined territory. As a result, a key characteristic of local governance in Tibet became the importance of sect-based rulers, who actively engaged with significant political bodies around the Tibetan-speaking regions. These small political entities sought or accepted canonization from these external powers like Chinese dynasties or inland Asian regimes, positioning themselves as subordinate entities within a broader political framework, in exchange for military protection and the opportunity to spread Tibetan Buddhism, which further solidified these political ties. The federation between the Sakya school and the Mongol Empire can be viewed as an extension of this strategy. The Tibetan lamas aimed to bridge the divide between the religious and the secular by developing a theocratic theory of governance (Franke 1981, p. 297). The Mongol Empire, recognizing the potential of this arrangement, was also eager to leverage it to establish its dominion over Tibet.

Rather than engaging in the day-to-day governance of Tibet (Tsering 2011), the Mongol Empire strategically established a dual-tiered power structure, comprising the Tibetan king and the Mongol emperor. The Tibetan king, previously a dispersed authority among various lords, was elevated to a position of seniority, with the Mongol Empire assuming the role of a senior lord and protector. This arrangement brought an end to the prolonged period of chaos in the Tibetan region and, through the restructuring of power dynamics, introduced a measure of political stability. The adoption of a federalized approach was a cost-effective means of achieving this restructuring and ensuring stability, as it inherently affords a greater degree of autonomy to local rulers (Cyr 2014; Flynn 2004). This autonomy allows for the continuation of local cultural, religious, and community practices unchanged. The Mongol Empire’s approach parallels the later Ottoman Empire’s millet system, which permitted non-Muslim communities in the Balkans to maintain their religious and cultural identities (Barkey and Gavrilis 2018; Öztürk 2009). A key aspect of this system was the financial contributions made by the millet communities to the empire, along with additional funds for the upkeep of their religious establishments. This system facilitated the rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire with relatively minimal resistance. Similarly, the Mongol Empire, prior to initiating hostilities, would typically issue demands for submission that essentially offered local rulers the chance to retain their positions and autonomy in exchange for allegiance to the khaghan (Allsen 1983). The integration of religious authority was a crucial component of this arrangement. The Mongol Empire not only respected local religious rights but also embraced Buddhism as the state religion and its primary patron. Choi (2022, p. 808) described this interesting transformation as, although Tibet was invaded and subjugated by the Mongols, “but then the subjects became teachers of their lords, the rulers of the Mongol world empire.” The leader of the Sakya sect, while a secular subject of the Mongol Empire, held the highest spiritual authority capable of legitimizing the Mongol Empire’s governance in Tibet. In a manner analogous to the medieval Christian concept of foedus, where agreements were made under the joint witness of the parties involved and God (Elazar 1987), the Mongol-Tibetan federation was established between the Mongol royal court and the Dpon-chen of Tibet. The Sakya leader, akin to the medieval pope, served as a divine agent, legitimizing the religious identity of secular rulers through the initiation ritual and bestowing divine sanction upon them. The Sakya leader not only granted the Khan the right to rule in Tibet but also divinely affirmed his status as the universal Khan, with the right to govern all known worlds. “By creating a theocratic theory of secular rule”, the Tibetan lamas bridged the divide between religion and state for the Mongol Khans (Franke 1981, p. 297), in conjunction with the Mongols’ inherent nomadic expansionist tendencies, provided the Khans with both a rationale and an impetus to pursue global conquest.

3. Tibetan Buddhism in the Empire

3.1. The Flourishing of Buddhism in the Mongol Empire

With the influence of monks like Phagpa and the establishment of Buddhism as the state religion, the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty palace of Kublai Khan was steeped in a strong Buddhist ethos from its inception (Jing 2004; Soni 2013). Buddhist principles were extensively woven into the political, social, and economic fabric of the territories formerly under Chinese governance. In 1260, Phagpa officiated at Kublai Khan’s enthronement as the inaugural emperor of the Yuan Dynasty, utilizing Tibetan Buddhist tangkha paintings and ceremonial practices to consecrate the new imperial reign (Wolff 2010). After the establishment of the Yuan government in Xanadu in 1263, the capital was relocated to Dadu (present-day Beijing) in 1267, where Kublai Khan established a substantial community of Buddhist adherents and clerics and appointed them to maintain civil order. Their duties encompassed the creation of a calendar, the regulation of ritualistic practices, and the harmonization of Buddhist customs with Mongolian traditions (Baumann 2022). The Buddha Recorded Throughout the Ages, authored by Shi Nianchang, documents that the emperor himself would partake in Buddhist rituals during his leisure, offering sustenance and reciting scriptures while holding prayer beads. This personal commitment from the emperor set a precedent for the court, sparking a wave of Buddhist devotion. Within the palace, Kublai Khan decreed that monks should chant the Amitāyus Buddha Mantra, and those who could recite it fluently were rewarded by the emperor in court. Each Yuan emperor, with the exception of those who died young, commissioned the transcription of Tibetan Buddhist scriptures in gold or silver. For instance, Kublai Khan “ordered a set of texts in… 1290 that used 3244 taels (179.76 kilos) of gold” (Jing 2004, p. 238). In 1318, during the reign of Ayurbarwada, 3000 taels (about 120 kilos) of gold were allocated for “a Tibetan version of the Vimalakirti Sutra” (Jing 2004, p. 238). Shidebala also “commissioned the Baoji Monastery to make a Tibetan version of Prajnaparamita Sutra in gold” (Jing 2004, p. 238). Both the imperial family and the populace invested considerable resources, including gold, silver, and cash, to accumulate merit. Monks and Buddhists were entrusted with performing a variety of religious rites, such as prayers for rain, wind, cessation of rain, suppression of thunder, veneration of celestial bodies, and rituals for healing epidemics and providing salvation (Jing 2004). In the early years of the empire, by 1293, there were 120 recorded Buddhist rituals in the empire court, which involved activities like setting up altars and offering prayers. This number subsequently grew to over 500 (Fritz 2016), reflecting the profound integration of Buddhist practices within the Yuan Dynasty’s religious and cultural milieu.

“To learn Tantric teachings or receive initiations from famous masters, a disciple was expected to make offerings of gold, silver, and other valuables” (Jing 2004, p. 214). The substantial monetary contributions from lay donors and the funds received by Buddhists during religious ceremonies significantly bolstered the economic standing of the Buddhist community (Van der Kuijp 2004) and catalyzed the flourishing of Buddhist cultural development. Contributions to a master might be allocated towards a range of “costly tasks”, including “making images, renovating buildings, constructing temples, and organizing religious gatherings” (Jing 2004, p. 214). The use of opulent materials served as a testament to the devotees’ religious commitment; consequently, materials like gold, silver, and silk were lavishly incorporated into artistic creations, becoming “the most striking physical properties of Tibetan Buddhist art” (Jing 2004, p. 215).

The support initiated an unprecedented transfer of imperial wealth to Tibet, leading to numerous immediate and enduring effects. This included “the construction of new monasteries and, concomitant with an increase in the monastic population, the rise of a new aristocratic class” (Choi 2022, p. 808). By the year 1330, a total of 367 Buddhist temples were recipients of regular state subsidies: “the top twelve imperial temples, such as the Temple of Sagely Longevity and Myriad Peace (Da Shengshou Wan’an Si), had a combined total of 3150 monks in fixed positions” (Jing 2004, p. 234). In the steppe regions of the Mongol Empire, including northern China and Central Asia, Buddhism largely supplanted earlier animistic practices and the indigenous Tengri beliefs (Yan 2020). It gradually replaced the original religious concepts with the ethical value of non-killing. This shift marked the cessation of human sacrifices, the killing of women, slaves, and animals that were previously used as funeral offerings, practices that were once prevalent under primitive Shamanism (Hyer 1981). In the southern territories of the Yuan Dynasty, which were formerly under the Southern Song Dynasty and predominantly Confucian, Buddhist symbols and culture were widely embraced and assimilated into the traditional Chinese Confucian ethos. This integration allowed Buddhist discourse to become “one of the basic forms or religious expression in the Central Plains [China] and adjacent areas” (Shi 2014, p. 141). Buddhism had already been prevalent during the Song Dynasty before the Yuan, with Emperor Zhenzong of Song composing On Respecting Buddhism (Chong Shi Lun) to advocate the notion that, despite their apparent differences, the teachings of Buddhism and the philosophies of Confucius and Mencius were fundamentally aligned (Shi 2014). In the Yuan Dynasty, Tibetan Buddhists continued to delineate the spiritual spheres of influence, designating Tibet and its environs as the domain of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, Mongolia as the realm of Vajrapani Bodhisattva, and Central China as the place of Manjushri Bodhisattva’s teachings. Kublai Khan positioned himself as a Chakravartin, a Buddhist sage-king, and “used Buddhist forms of phraseology and images of Buddhist origin in his decrees” (Ma 2022, p. 264). His imperial decrees “regularly mentioned Eternal Heaven in a standard ‘opening formula’”, which was a term that had never been seen in China (Ma 2022, p. 264). Through these means, Buddhism emerged as a unifying force among the federated regions, fortifying the ties between Central China, Mongolia, and Tibet. Moreover, “patronizing Buddhism to a degree no nation ever approached, the Mongols brought Buddhism to its apogee as a world religion, connecting their empire with Buddhist centers over an area that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea” (Baumann 2022, p. 681). With each successive generation, Mongols were born into a Buddhist milieu, and their conversion to Buddhism was complete, adopting Buddhist names such as Sambuu, derived from the Chinese “sanbao” meaning “the three jewels” (Baumann 2022, p. 692). The proportion of Buddhists in the Mongol Empire’s court also rose significantly, to the point that Zieme (2016, p. 180) observed that Buddhist names constituted the majority in the economic records of the time.

3.2. Destructive Conquest and Tolerance of Diversity

Bolstered by Mongolian patronage, the preservation and propagation of Buddhist scriptures experienced a significant boost. Throughout various monastic centers of Sakya and Nyingma, Tibetan translations of Buddhist scriptures and scholarly works from previous centuries were meticulously copied and compiled. The decades of the 1270s and 1280s marked a surge in the scribal reproduction of Buddhist texts preserved in Tibetan manuscripts. The Buddhist sutras, tantras, and vinaya are categorized as the sacred word (bka’) of the Buddha (the teachings), and the sastras, scholastic texts, and commentaries are categorized as as bstan-bcos (the treatises) (Apple 2014; Ruegg 2000). Such period, was “the high point of Tibetan textual exegesis, philosophical penetration, and systematic hermeneutics” (Ruegg 2000, p. 5). Among the Mongolian scholars contributing to this endeavor was Kaludanasi, who was well-versed in Buddhist philosophy and the local dialects. He had been instructed to study Buddhism and Tibetan under Phagpa at the behest of the empire and subsequently engaged in the translation of Sanskrit and Tibetan sutras into Mongolian (Gangopadhyay 1992). Between 1285 and 1287, under Kublai Khan’s reign, a new edition of the Chinese Tripitaka was published, and “large sums of money were expended for the purpose of printing” (Gangopadhyay 1992, p. 20).

The adoption of Buddhism by the Mongols was not merely a matter of individual nobles, or even emperors choosing their preferred faith. It represented “one aspect of a greater geopolitical modus operandi” (Baumann 2022, p. 682). Embracing Tibetan Buddhism not only established the legitimacy of Mongolian rulers over vast territories but also reshaped the political landscape of the Mongol Empire, further propelling its territorial expansion. In the early ascension of the Mongol Empire, the Tengri faith was instrumental, with “Heaven” (Tengri) providing the overarching spiritual framework for the world and being credited with the Mongols’ own success. The term “tore”, which later came to signify government, originally referred to a man-made cosmic structure (Buell and Kolbas 2016). This concept underscored the divine favor bestowed upon Mongol rulers and the right of the khan, as the recipient of natural power, to establish the norms of human order. However, the relatively decentralized structure of the Tengri religion and the early Mongol Empire’s state system were ill-equipped to counter the centrifugal tendencies inherent in tribal nomadic societies (Jackson 2000, p. 195). Tibetan Buddhism, with its well-defined hierarchies and its emphasis on the mystical power of religious leaders, offered a complementary structure to Tengri which emphasized conquest and expansion as a means to establish norms. This fusion led to the religious authority and secular government being organized in a more orderly fashion, constituting what Franke (1981, p. 308) refers to as “Lamaist caesaropapism”. In Tibetan Buddhism, the deity Mahakala is the wrathful manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of Infinite Compassion (Wolff 2010), and served as an ideal protective figure for the Mongol Khans. Mahakala is depicted with a fierce expression, long tusks, a skull crown, holding a weapon and dancing on a dead body, symbolizing the annihilation of all things, including time itself (Baumann 2022). The presence of “great Buddhas and bodhisattvas” on earth was believed to coincide with the rise of “temporal rulers” to prominence (Birnbaum 1983, p. 37; Klieger 1989, p. 10). By adopting Mahakala as his spiritual guide, Kublai Khan, in a sense, became an embodiment of Mahakala, assuming the role of the great protector of Buddhism, a Chakravartin, and a Buddhist sage-king. With the blessings of the dreaded Mahakala (Franke 1981), the Mongol Empire’s military campaigns were characterized by the destruction of the high ruling orders and structures, with widespread killing of resistors and plundering of wealth, alongside the establishment of a new order that featured religious tolerance and local autonomy. The Tibetan lamas aimed to bridge the divide between the religious and the secular by formulating a theocratic theory of governance (Franke 1981, p. 297). In this context, the expansion of religion and the empire’s military conquests mutually reinforced each other, shaping the vast territories under Mongol rule.

In the year 1278, Phagpa authored a foundational text on Buddhist teachings titled Elucidation of the Knowable, which served as a guide specifically for Zhenjin, the son of Kublai Khan (1243–1286). This primer was subsequently translated into Chinese by Sha-lo-pa (1259–1314) under the name Zhangsuozhilun and was included in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the Tripitaka (Franke 1981, p. 307). The practice of educating the heir apparent through a formal catechism, known in Tibetan as the “treasury of explanations”, was a customary approach in Buddhist pedagogy, often tailored for royalty. Editing the Elucidation of the Knowable underscores the pivotal role of Buddhist education in shaping the ideological framework for the Mongol Empire’s successors. It was the rich theocratic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that ultimately sacralized Mongol rule over China (Franke 1981, p. 304). The Elucidation of the Knowable also bestows a religious status upon the crown prince Zhenjin by referring to him as a “Bodhisattva Imperial Prince”, exemplifying the sacralization of Genghis Khan’s lineage by Tibetan lamas. The text, written in the abhidharma tradition and beginning with an invocation to Sakya Pandita, is structured into five parts. The third part, focusing on the Animate World, outlines the origins of a Mongolian Buddhist worldview. The text presents a genealogy that traces the lineage from the deified sage-king Mahasammata, through the Solar Race of Kings, to the kings of Tibet, and ultimately to the rule of Genghis Khan 3250 years after the Buddha’s Nirvana (Baumann 2022; Franke 1981). Through this work, Phagpa weaved together Buddhist scriptures, Mongol law, and history to formulate a political theological concept grounded in Buddhist philosophy (Franke 1981) and provided a unifying ideological foundation that integrated the spiritual and temporal aspects of governance within the Mongol Empire.

Although the federal arrangement between the Mongol Empire and Tibet elevated the Sakya school to a position of religious preeminence in Tibet and instituted a system that merged religious and political governance, this system did not aim to assimilate or persecute other sects. The Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty adhered to a policy of tolerance towards local autonomy and freedom of religion (Baumann 2022; Jackson 2000; Ma 2022). The Sakya school, under Phagpa’s guidance, was predominantly followed by the top Tibetan Buddhist leaders and the highest administrative officials in Tibet (Atwood 2016), while in other parts of the Mongol Empire, it did not lead to the suppression of other religious practices. The Mongolian governance did not enforce a single ideological or philosophical system upon its subjects (Sugiyama 2015), so that “Tibetan Buddhism never became the sole religion of the empire” (Ma 2022). Prior to the Sakya sect’s rise to power, early 13th century Tibet was characterized by the coexistence of multiple sects (Choi 2022). With the decline of the Yuan Dynasty, the Sakya sect’s influence waned, and the theocratic governance was transitioned to another powerful sect, the Phagdru Kagyu, one sub-school of the Kagyu school. Nonetheless, the position of state preceptor remained with the chief lama of the Sakya sect, although it is important to note that the abbot of a competing sect, the Kagyu school, was also held in high esteem by the Mongolian court (Jagchid 1971; Shen 2010). As referenced in the Brahma’s Net Sutra (Brahmajāla Sūtra), it was emphasized that “one who leaves the family for Dharma does not prostrate facing the king, nor his parents, nor the siblings, but discerns the teacher’s words” (Fritz 2016, p. 33). The Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty, influenced by Buddhist culture, demonstrated a level of tolerance towards freedom of speech and diversity, which was a departure from the typical autocratic rule. This tolerance can be considered a triumph of a federal system that limits centralized authority.

The federal structure of the Yuan Dynasty under the Mongol Empire’s leadership was emblematic of the broader federal framework of the Mongol Empire itself. In essence, the rulers of the major khanates “used religious specialists and others to gain the support of, or to neutralize, spiritual beings which foreigners might, or did, introduce to their courts and empires” (Walter 2009, p. 9). The Golden Horde in Europe is recognized for embedding a rich cultural and political legacy to the later rise of the Russian Empire. Similarly, the Ilkhanate in the Middle East rapidly embraced Islam in 1295 (Jackson 2000; Zieme 2016), which led to a discontinuation of ideological ties with the Eastern Khans (Jackson 2000). Within the Yuan Dynasty in China, the Mongol royal court also absorbed Confucianism into its decision-making core, as a Confucian faction that could rival the Mongol faction (Yan 2020). Neistrianism or the Eastern Church also found widespread acceptance in Central Asia. Federalization can be viewed as “a process of community-building, and of establishing and maintaining a stable and lawful relationship among many narrower and wider such consociations or communities” (Hueglin 2003, p. 281), while the federation of Mongol indeed fitted itself into such a model. After setting the overarching federation framework, the Mongol Empire allowed significant room for regional survival and diversity, fostering a flourishing environment for different religious, ethnic, and cultural communities. Despite the heavy casualties caused by military campaigns in the empire’s early stages, the vast territory that was united under Mongol rule connected the Eurasian continent in an unprecedented manner of federation (Sugiyama 2015, 2017) and facilitated certain unforeseen outcomes (Biran 2013; Buell 2011). The Mongol Empire and the wider Eurasian world were invisibly linked through the circulation of silver, and the cultural goods “compatible with Mongol norms and beliefs, such as medicine (i.e., healing), astronomy and divination (reading of heaven), geography and cartography (reading of earth)” (Biran 2013, p. 1023). To facilitate regional communication and the spread of ideas, the Mongols established extensive local communication and postal systems (Franke 1981; Silverstein 2007). Even as they controlled the Chinese region, the Mongols did not prohibit traditional trade between China and the West; instead, they encouraged its growth. Maritime trade expanded, and the “Silk Road became more secure” (Ma 2022, p. 270), fostering increased economic and cultural exchange across the vast empire.

4. The Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs

4.1. Settings and Functions of the Bureau

During the Yuan Dynasty’s governance over Tibet, the administrative body in charge of Tibetan affairs was known as the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs, or Xuanzheng Yuan. Initially established by Kublai Khan in 1264 as the Bureau of General Regulation, or Zongzhi Yuan, its name was modified in 1288 to its present form (Franke 1981). The bureau’s mandate was to oversee Buddhist monks worldwide and the territory of Tibet, merging civil and military governance with religious authority into a unified system. Unlike other provincial administrations, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs was based in the imperial capital and was a highly influential department, holding “equal footing in terms of power with the Privy Council, the Cabinet Secretaries and the Censorate” (Jiawei and Gyaincain 2009, p. 43). It had its headquarters in Beijing, and a branch office, referred to as the Xing Xuanzheng Yuan, in Hangzhou (Fritz 2016, p. 25). The bureau’s jurisdiction extended over Tibet as well as Tibetan and religious affairs throughout the empire (Wolff 2010).

Under this framework, Tibet maintained control over religious matters, while the Yuan Dynasty oversaw administrative matters. The Sakya Lama was entrusted with the maintenance of religious order, and the Yuan emperor managed secular affairs. This arrangement has been termed a “dual principle” by Soni (2013, p. 54), where “the sacred and the secular operated coterminously” within a “diarchic structure”. The Mongolian chronicle History of the Dharma With Ten Virtues (Arban Buyantu Nom-un Chaγaan Teükei) encapsulates this dual system of governance (Franke 1981). The religious domain was symbolized by the Sutras, while the secular realm was founded on peace and tranquility. The creation of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs marked the inception of a political theology that delineated the relationship between the state and religion within the Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhist sphere (Laird 2007). Later, the Yuan Dynasty further delineated the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs into three distinct regions: Hezhou, the Dokhams, and the U-Tsang and Ngari Korsum pacification commissioner’s offices. These territories were brought together under the umbrella of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs’ jurisdiction.

For the administration of Tibetan territories, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs appointed officials known as “dpon-chen” to be stationed in the Tibetan region. These dpon-chen were nominated by the State Preceptor (Guoshi), who was the head of the Sakya sect and based in the Beijing office. The appointment was subject to the approval of the Yuan Dynasty emperor also residing in Beijing. The dpon-chen functioned under the order of the lama and the authority of the emperor, safeguarding both religious and civil laws and maintaining the peace of the nation and the prosperity of the religion. At the same time, Central Tibet was further divided into lha-sde and mi-sde. Lha-sde referred to households under the ownership of Buddhist monasteries and religious leaders, while Mi-sde denoted households controlled by secular feudal lords. The region was then subdivided into 13 trikors as myriarchies, each governed by a local lord known as a tripon. In Chinese, this position was also translated as Wanhu, which means a local lord or feudal lord who ruled over 10,000 households. However, in reality, it should be noted that “none of the thirteen myriarchies are reported to have comprised the ideal figure of 10,000 households” (Wylie 1977, p. 12). The tripons, governing a specific number of lha-sde and mi-sde, were required to be recommended by the dpon-chen to the imperial khan and receive the khan’s approval before they could assume their official duties. This administrative structure ensured a degree of local autonomy while maintaining the Yuan Dynasty’s overarching authority and influence in the region.

It was a shrewd approach for the Mongol Emperor, “sens[ing] the need to avoid antagonizing the ruling clergy in the countries he conquered. The church appeared to him as an effective means of control” (Kwanten 1974, p. 19). Although this dual governance model weakened with the decline of the Mongol Empire and the Yuan Dynasty, its influence lingered, shaping the approach of subsequent Ming and Qing dynasties towards Tibet (Soni 2013). The Ming Dynasty, in particular, sought to emulate Yuan’s administrative methods, initially backing the Drukpa Kagyu sect and later supporting the rGelug sect (Gangopadhyay 1992; Jiawei and Gyaincain 2009), despite having less administrative control over Tibet compared with the Yuan Dynasty (Apple 2014). The Qing Dynasty solidified its influence in Tibet by forging ties between the Manchu and Mongolian communities which at that time showed “no hard and fast divide”, leveraging the groundwork laid during the Yuan Dynasty through connections with Buddhism (Sperling 2012, p. 197). The Qing era saw a shift in the power dynamics, with the Gelug sect, particularly the Dalai Lama and Panchen Erdeni, serving as key intermediaries between Tibet and the empire (Xie and Zhao 2022).

4.2. Integration of Territorial and Non-Territorial Governance

As previously mentioned, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs had a broad purview that extended beyond Tibetan affairs to include oversight of Buddhism and Buddhist affairs across the empire. It was also responsible for supervising all temples, monasteries, and other Buddhist properties within the Yuan Dynasty’s territory. This role represents a highly innovative federal management model that integrates territory-based governance with non-territory-based management. In terms of its administrative function, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs’ functions are somewhat akin to those of the India Office in London during the British Raj. The India Office, initially part of the British East India Company, was later transformed into a government department in London, England, with responsibility for the administration of India and some adjacent territories (William 1966). In terms of non-territorial management based on religious communities, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs’ role parallels the current arrangement for language communities in Belgium. In Belgium, overlapping yet distinct non-territorial jurisdictions are established alongside territorial administrative bodies to cater to the needs of specific language groups in social and cultural matters (Karmis and Gagnon 2001). Regarding territory-based management, Tibet, as an administrative unit defined by a specific geography, was subject to the governance of the Mongol Empire and the Yuan Dynasty, which functioned as a higher-tier federal authority. Concurrently, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs, based in Beijing, managed Tibetan affairs, Buddhism, and Buddhist affairs throughout the empire according to non-territorial principles, to manage a community defined by their shared Buddhist faith. This dual approach to management, combining territorial and non-territorial oversight, resulted in a significant overlap in the administration of Tibet. Thus, the residents of Tibet were expected to comply with both, the territorial state regulations of the Mongol Empire regarding taxation and law, and in the realms of culture and religion, the non-territorial regulations of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs. Tibet was not only a territorial unit governed by the Mongol Empire but also a region predominantly shaped by Tibetan Buddhism, with a multitude of local affairs overseen by the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs. As recorded in the History of Yuan: In the prefectures and counties, officials were appointed to assign duties, and they were under the leadership of the state preceptor… The orders of the state preceptor were executed in conjunction with the imperial edicts. Consequently, the Yuan Dynasty effectively instituted a unique dual management structure for Tibetan affairs, blending territorial autonomy with non-territorial autonomy.

The arrangement described indeed represents an even more contemporary management concept within federalist configurations. Since the modern era, the construction of a nation-state has invariably involved challenges related to organizing based on territorial units and organizing based on community identity. The emergence of nation-states has capitalized on the intersection of these two principles, making it a nearly dominant approach to nation-building in modern times. As numerous ethnic groups have sought national self-determination and statehood, this has also posed challenges to multi-ethnic and multi-religious composite states. Addressing such conflicts and tensions to establish a federal government that fosters ethnic and religious diversity is a critical issue in federalism studies (Requejo 2001, 2005). At the dawn of the 20th century, Austrian scholars developed a non-territorial federal mechanism grounded in personal principle and cultural autonomy, which was considered a radical and controversial innovation in federal planning. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, faced with escalating demands for diversity and national self-governance during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Karl Renner, who would later become the Austrian Chancellor, endeavored to redefine Austro-Hungarian federalism in a more innovative fashion (Blum and Smaldone 2015; Burgess 2012). Renner critiqued the traditional state institutions for their overemphasis on ethnic homogeneity and territorial integrity, advocating instead for a new personal principle and cultural autonomy. The reform program of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time aimed to construct a nation based on a network of non-territorial national communities and associations to alleviate the tensions stemming from ethnic conflicts. Under this personal principle, the federation would be organized around the union of individuals rather than the division of territories (Bauer 2015; Renner 2005). Individuals would have the autonomy to determine which national community they belong to and would be subject to the laws and rules of that community, regardless of where they resided within the Empire. These laws and rules would govern their affairs in political, financial, and judicial matters. Membership in a national community, according to Renner, was independent of territory, descent, or even mother tongue. “All were free to decide to which Volk they belonged” (Reifowitz 2017, p. 151).

In Renner’s vision, a federal system based on personal principle should be structured around three distinct tiers: the state, the territorial, and the national, each accompanied by its own administrative entities—state administration, territorial administration, and national self-administration (Keating 2005). State administration aligns with the central government institutions, territorial administration corresponds to the administrative bodies of provinces and cities, and national self-determination institutions are the national communities themselves. These national communities maintain a central office in the empire’s administrative capital and also have a presence spread throughout the empire to cater to the needs of their members (Renner 2005, p. 30). In the context of the relationship between Tibet and the Yuan Dynasty, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs in Beijing served as the central office for Tibetan administration (Van der Kuijp 2004), while the religious communities, such as monasteries scattered across the empire, acted as service points. Tibetans and Buddhists, rather than residing in defined, concentrated areas, lived in a dispersed manner. They fell under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs in the capital and were subject to laws enacted by the Yuan Dynasty that were distinct from those of other territorial provinces, representing a form of non-territorial management. This non-territorial federal construction, in essence, represents an association based on shared racial, religious, and cultural identities, offering an alternative to the rigid territorial boundaries defined by provinces and cities. The former approach focuses on preserving autonomous spaces for specific communities while employing a federal structure to provide foundational security and protection. In contrast, the latter seeks to use a centralized state apparatus to delineate the scope of governance, often overlooking the complexities and diversities inherent in an individual’s identity.

Under the non-territorial federal system as conceptualized by Renner, the structure is designed to organize the population on two distinct planes: “once nationally and once according to administrative requirements” (Kann 1950, p. 159). This framework allows national communities to exercise greater autonomy in the realms of culture and education, while central institutions retain control over areas such as security and foreign policy (Kelly 2005; Shikova 2021). By conceptualizing the state as an association of individuals and nations, rather than a mere territorial entity (Bowring 2005; Breen 2020; De Villiers 2016), this approach acknowledges the intermediary role of the nation in linking individuals with societies and organizing through cultural autonomy. This model advocates for an ethnic organization based on individual autonomy, where each ethnic group maintains independence and operates according to its internal structure and actual power representatives (Bakisian 1992; Burgess 2012; Kemp 2005; Prinz 1978). In the Yuan Dynasty, the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs played the role of such a non-territorial nation community institution. Moreover, the Bureau exemplifies a blend of non-territorial and territorial autonomy. It managed Tibetan and Buddhist affairs across the empire and also wielded considerable administrative power over the Tibetan region based on territory (Ma 2022). In addition to its non-territorial administration of Buddhist and Tibetan affairs, the Bureau conducted territorial-based administration in the capital through local rulers of Tibet who were nominated by the Yuan and confirmed by the imperial khan (Van der Kuijp 2004). These local rulers served as extensions of the Bureau’s authority and acted as local representatives in handling practical matters (Wylie 1977), while the Bureau was in charge of policy direction in collaboration with the imperial administration. This ingenious arrangement reflects the unity at the federal level while also de facto granting local autonomy. This local autonomy indicates that Tibetan affairs were managed by officials nominated by the Bureau in Beijing and that Tibetan policies required the combined efforts of central officials representing the palace’s will and the Bureau representing Tibet’s local interests. The decision-making process embodies the federal principle of “compound majoritarianism” named by Elazar (1987), and is implemented at the lowest level of government capable of addressing the issue, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity, a key tenet of federalism in Elazar (1987) and Hueglin (2019). Cleverly, the Mongolian-Tibetan federal empire explored a novel federal construction model that was ahead of its time, a method of integrating territorial governance with non-territorial governance. This innovative and unexpected institutional arrangement dramatically breaks our stereotype of Mongolian rule as crude and mismanaged.

5. Conclusions

Revisiting the history of the Mongol Empire’s rule over Tibet holds significant importance in both historical and institutional aspects. Historically, it aids in understanding the relationship between Mongolia and Tibet from a federalist perspective, rather than viewing it through the lens of centralism and military occupation. In terms of institutional analysis, we discern a non-territorial federal model based on mutually beneficial religious and secular relationships, a model that seems to resonate with Western federalism as well. Specifically, the relationship between Mongolia and Tibet can be regarded as a kind of alliance or federation. In this relationship, both Mongolia and Tibet gained benefits. The Mongolian ruling group obtained legitimacy from Tibetan religious leaders, while the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs played the role of both local government and central institution, managing complex Buddhist religious affairs on behalf of the Mongol government. Tibet, in turn, was militarily protected by the Mongols and economically supported by the widespread patronage of Mongol society. What sustained this ingenious alliance/federation was, on the one hand, Tibetan Buddhism, and on the other hand, the institutional innovations of the Mongol Empire.

Benefiting from the patronage of monks across the entire Mongol Empire, Tibetan Buddhism reached its historical peak in terms of literature, economy, art, and political influence. In return, religious leaders provided religious blessings to the imperial emperor, empowering the Mongol Empire’s military with the legitimacy to conquer more vast lands. In this process, the Mongol Empire’s monarchs were regarded as the dark incarnation of Avalokiteshvara—Mahakala, who destroys everything and rebuilds order.

In terms of institutional analysis, the federalization between the Mongol Empire and Tibet, founded on an exchange of mutual interests and shared religious convictions, gave rise to a distinctive framework. This framework enabled the Mongol Empire to effectively administer the region without dismantling Tibet’s indigenous social fabric and religious hierarchy. The management model epitomized a respect for Tibet’s autonomy while simultaneously securing the Mongol Empire’s dominion over the area, striking a delicate balance between political and religious authority. The remit of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs was not confined to Tibetan governance, but also encompassed the oversight of Buddhist affairs across the empire, creating a hybrid management model that addressed both territorial and non-territorial affairs. It exemplified a flexible and inclusive approach that fosters the coexistence of diverse cultures and religions within a singular political entity, allowing each to retain its autonomy. This somewhat reverses the impression of the Mongol rule as crude and barbaric in the minds of later generations. In summary, the re-examination of the relationship between the Mongolian Empire and Tibet is not only historically significant but also has inspirational and referential value in the practice of institutions. The federal perspective continues to demonstrate its uniqueness and advantages in terms of autonomy, multiculturalism, and religious freedom.