The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government” by Yumiko Ishihama and colleagues offers new insight into issues and conversations from Tibetan and Mongolian sources concerning the political status of Mongolia and Tibet in the early twentieth century. The introduction posits a transregional “Tibetan Buddhist world” (p. 1) arising around the time of the Tibetan Buddhist reformer Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) and lasting until at least the late seventeenth century when the Jöüngars went to war against the Khalkha Mongols. The book further suggests that this world reemerged with the fall of the Manchu dynasty (1911) and that Buddhist governments were then reborn in Mongolia and Tibet.

Chapter 1 examines the early twentieth-century schism with the 8th Jebtsundamba, which developed when the 13th Dalai Lama undertook a self-imposed exile in Mongolia to avoid being present during the 1903 English invasion of Tibet. Subsequent chapters focus on the efforts of the 13th Dalai Lama to establish diplomatic contacts with foreign governments and the advice he received from the representatives of those governments, renewed contacts between Tibet and the Kalmyk Buddhists of Russia, Tibetan rejection of the authority of the Qing government, and the intent and implications of the Tibetan Mongolian Treaty of 1913. The book contributes to the ongoing international debate concerning the Tibetan people's claims of the right to political independence. Each chapter provides evidence from historical correspondence or documents to illustrate how various Tibetan and Mongolian agents viewed their political status, and each examines efforts they undertook to achieve independence in the eyes of the international community. Each chapter is a well-researched contribution, and all authors make good use of primary sources that provide intimate perspective and give individuals a greater voice.

All the authors also make an effort to support Ishihama's introductory proposal that a Tibetan Buddhist world had reemerged. But the claims in those chapters are often weak and simplistic. In chapter 3, for example, Takehiko Inoue states that because of the early twentieth-century activities of Agwan Dorzhiev, the Buryat Lama and advisor to the 13th Dalai Lama, “the Kalmyk Buddhist Community was integrated into the Tibetan Buddhist world” (p. 78). If Inoue had used the word “reconnected” instead of “integrated,” it would be suitable. The creation of a new school of philosophy on Kalmyk territory did not bring about reintegration but rather a channel for promising students to again study in Lhasa. These weaknesses originate from the lack of a convincing argument for the existence and nature of an integrated “Tibetan Buddhist world,” or exactly what is intended by that construct. Ishihama does say that it is a sphere of personal, material, and spiritual exchange (p. 4). The book's focus on the Gelukpa lineage implies that this world was exclusive of other Tibetan Buddhist influences. The use of the term “Tibetan” to characterize this Buddhist world fails to address arguments that the Khalkha Mongols, the first Jebtsundamba, and the Qing court all contributed to the differentiation of the Tibetan and Mongolian sanghas.Footnote ¹

Further, there are no historic examples of a term meaning “Tibetan Buddhism.” It too is a modern construct with some conventional merit but no established basis in doctrine. Problems with this become apparent when Ishihama discusses the building of a new “Tibetan Temple” after every major Qing political victory (p. 5). What defined such temples as Tibetan rather than Qing? Were they architecturally or liturgically “Tibetan,” or were they Tibetan merely because they were built within this proposed sphere of exchange? My objection to the use of the term is that it obscures the diversity of the influences that formed the Buddhist community of Central Asia and robs most of them of their contributions to that world. It reinforces the implication that Mongolian Buddhism never existed independently from Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, we might more convincingly posit a Mongolian Buddhist world and link it to the pan-Mongolian movement of the early twentieth century. The relationships between Khubilai Khan and Sakya Phagpa, Altan Khan and the 3rd Dalai Lama, and Güüshi Khan and the 5th Dalai Lama could be viewed as foundational elements of that Mongolian Buddhist world. But our collective tendency is to give religious figures greater agency in these relationships, failing to value the political acumen of the Khans who sought legitimacy in terms of Buddhist ideology.

Yet, the chapters in The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government” stand well on their own and each is a valuable contribution to the core issue of political status and international relations.Footnote ² There are a few points where oversimplification of complex historical events is cause for concern. Ishihama, for example, characterizes the war between Galdan Boshugtu Khan and the Khalkhas as caused by a show of disrespect for the Dalai Lama (p. 4). While Galdan himself cites that as a reason, there were many others, including the fact that the Tusheetu Khan had seized many of the subjects of the Jasagtu Khan, Galdan's ally, and killed Galdan's younger brother in battle.Footnote ³ Such simplifications too often end up cited in later, popular sources that in isolation lead to significant mischaracterization. Both scholars and students can benefit from this volume. While it does not provide conclusive evidence of de facto Tibetan political independence, it does offer insight into the views of several key players and their motivations.