The administrative structure of border territories of Russia and the Qing empire in Transbaikalia and Northern Mongolia in XVIII - mid-XIX cent. (experience of comparative analysis)

Bureya and Kyakhta treaties (1727) established the borders between the Russian and Qing empires in Transbaikalia and Northern Mongolia (or Khalkha). Population of Trans-Baikal territories, consisting mainly of Buryats and Evenks was on the Russian side of the border, and Khalkha people roamed in the North of Mongolia on the Qing side. However, the mentioned treaties at the time of its signing did not form, but only legally fixed already existed political and administrative realities which defined indigenous inhabitants of Transbaikalia and Northern Mongolia in subjects to two different rulers – the Russian Tsar and the Qing Emperor.

The subordination of the Buryat tribes to the Russian government began in 1620-ies and was essentially completed by the end of the XVII century. It was not immediately, and only occasionally was voluntary. As for the rulers of Khalkha aimags, they first swore allegiance to the Qing Emperor Kangxi in 1655-1656. However, the full extent of the Qing Empires’ political and administrative control was spread on Northern Mongolia in 1691 after Khalkha aimags failed in the war with West Mongolian Dzungar khanate.

Before the establishment of the border between Russia and the Qing Empire, migration routes between Baikal and Northern Mongolia were opened. So, for example, Buryat tribal groups (Atagan, Ashehabat, Uzon, Tsongol) moved from Khalkha in the lower reaches of the Selenga. In the second half of the XVIII century these tribes mixed with the local population and formed one of the main parts of the Buryat ethnos – Selenga Buryats.

After the entry into force of the provisions stated in Bureya and Kyakhta tracts, cross-border migration, if not stopped at all, obviously began to decline. On the Russian side of the border, the cessation of previous systematic political, cultural and economic ties of the local population in Mongolia contributed to the ethnic consolidation of previously dispersed Buryat tribal communities Ekherit,

Bulagat, Khodnogor, Hori. As a result, by the early nineteenth century the majority of the Mongolian, Turkic and Tungus-Manchurian indigenous tribes of the Baikal region, which were under the jurisdiction of the Russian state, formed the signs of a single Buryat ethical community. In addition, the Bureya and Kyakhta treaties outlined the limits for moving deep into the Mongolian lands of Russian immigrants – serving and "pioneer" people. On the other side of the border, the legal and de facto monopoly rights of the supreme administration of the local Khalkha population were in the hands of the central authorities of the Qing Empire.

Thus, the border separation of 1727, of course, was an important stage in the process of integration of the Baikal region into Russia, and regions of the North Mongolia – into the Qing China. But it should be noted that in the Russian and Qing versions the approach to solving the problems of the mentioned integration was based on completely different experience of state building and was formed under the influence of different, and sometimes polar opposite political theories and ideological concepts. As for the views of Russian authorities in the XVII – early XVIII century, the importance of Transbaikal possessions was determined by their traditional aspirations to acquire and develop new Siberian "earthlings", whose economic potential was intended to serve as a replenishment of the Treasury and the development of trade, and local people had to increase the number of Royal subjects. An important incentive in the approval of the Russian administration in Transbaikalia was the possibility of acquiring “yasak” – a specific kind of loans paid by local population in the form of a valuable fur, which was rich in this region. According to S. V. Bakhrushin, “with the extreme primitiveness of the then finances, the weak development of monetary turnover and the complete almost absence of trade credit, Siberian furs, received by the Treasury, were not only one of the largest funds for maintaining the fluctuating Moscow budget, but also one of the most important factors in the commercial life of the state”. 1 In addition, in the representations of the Central and Siberian authorities of the Russian state in the XVII – early XVIII century, Transbaikalia was an important springboard for establishing trade and political ties with China.

As for the Qing doctrine of establishing power upon Northern Mongolia, its objectives were fundamentally different from the priorities of Russian policy in Transbaikalia. Khalkha people, like the Mongols in general, primarily interested the Manchu dynasty as a powerful armed force, which subject to the necessary conditions could bring significant help to the Qing emperors in carrying out active foreign policy and maintaining stability inside the huge multi-ethnic empire state. From the late XVII to the beginning of the XX century population of Khalkha ayimags was not considered by the Imperial administration as an object of fiscal taxation, multiplying the revenues of the Treasury. Instead, all the Northern Mongols, from princes to commoners, were entrusted with the duties of performing numerous public services. Its purpose in peacetime was to maintain the combat readiness of the militia in the placement necessary order and peace in the neighboring regions of the Great Steppe, in establishing the system for the protection of the Northern borders of the Empire. But to fit their purpose of the junior military-political "allies" of the Manchu dynasty Khalkha people could only under the condition that they remained nomads. Therefore, according to the Qing political theory, the population of Northern Mongolia must be isolated from any effects that carry the risk of undermining the traditional way of Mongolian life, whether it be external, coming from the Russian side, or internal, which had a Chinese origin.

The discrepancies between the Russian and Qing authorities in the ideas of rational management of adjacent border regions, it would seem, inevitably had to lead to significant differences in the construction of the administrative system on both sides of the border. However, the analysis of the means and methods used by both States in the XVIII – first half of the XIX century to solve multifaceted problems of establishing a system of management of Buryat and Khalkha nomadic population under their jurisdiction raises doubts about the validity of such an assumption. Russia in Transbaikalia and the Qing Empire in Northern Mongolia independently of each other and in their own interests carried out political and administrative reforms, in the fundamental features of which there are more similarities than differences.

In fact, and in another case, solving the problem of integrating outlying suburbs into part of a huge multi-national states, their central authorities obviously sought to rely on the local social elite, then and there, where, from their point of view, it was possible. The cooperation of the Buryat and Khalkha nomadic aristocracy, each with its own supreme authorities, allowed the latter to gradually expand the administrative, economic and social reconstruction of the border areas, thereby bringing their population to submission without fighting with it. Condition, providing an opportunity for such cooperation, was organized both by the Russian and Qing authorities by means of using respectively traditional Buryat and Khalkha forms of political and social organization as the source element in the construction of a new vertically integrated administrative structures. In Buryatia, the local rulers (noyons) retained the inheritance rights of the ulus administration. The same status in North Mongolian ayimags was endowed with sovereign princes (rulers of local khoshuuns). At the same time both of them enjoyed a certain autonomy in the sphere of judicial power over the population subordinate to them and in the field of regulation of property, family and economic relations developing in their environment. Russian and Qing laws respectively addressed to Buryats and Khalkhas stated that the inhabitants of ulus in Buryatia and khoshuuns in North Mongolia without official permission must not cross the borders of the above mentioned administrative units, while those units were assigned for them as places of permanent residence.

Equally, the traditional Buryat and Khalkha judicial and administrative institutions operated at higher levels of local administrative structure. Among these institutions were suglans and chuulgans – assemblies, that respectively gathered Buryat and Khalkha princes and lords. Their competence included the distribution of taxes and duties and the decision of litigation arising between ulus and khoshuuns. In addition, the forms of military organization (more precisely, self-organization) peculiar to Buryat and Khalkha traditions were used in Russia and in the Qing Empire as an important power component in the system of protection and defense of state borders.

Taking into account the mentioned circumstances, it seems quite natural that the customary and written Buryat and Mongolian law has become an important source in the formation and improvement of sections of the Russian and Qing legislation on civil, military and judicial management of national minorities inhabiting Transbaikalia and Northern Mongolia.