romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
Kublai Khan did not conquer the Song dynasty in South China until 1279, so Tibet was a component of the early Mongol Empire before it was combined into one of its descendant empires with the whole of China under the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368). Van Praag writes that this conquest "marked the end of independent China," which was then incorporated into the Yuan dynasty that ruled China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, parts of Siberia and Upper Burma. Morris Rossabi, a professor of Asian history at Queens College, City University of New York, writes that "Khubilai wished to be perceived both as the legitimate Khan of Khans of the Mongols and as the Emperor of China. Though he had, by the early 1260s, become closely identified with China, he still, for a time, claimed universal rule", and yet "despite his successes in China and Korea, Khubilai was unable to have himself accepted as the Great Khan". Thus, with such limited acceptance of his position as Great Khan, Kublai Khan increasingly became identified with China and sought support as Emperor of China.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did Kublai Khan conquer the song dynasty?  
A: 1279', '
Q: When did the Yuan dynasty rule?
A: 1271–1368', '
Q: Which dynasty ruled all of china? 
A: the Yuan dynasty', '
Q: What did Khubilai claim for a while?
A: universal rule', '
Q: Where did Khubilai seek support as Emperor?
A: China']
In 1358, the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown in a rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364). The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy, and Changchub Gyaltsen and his successors, the Phagmodrupa Dynasty, gained de facto rule over Tibet.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What year was the Sakya viceregal regime eradicated? 
A: 1358', '
Q: Who placed the Sakya viceregal regime position of authority?
A: the Mongols in Tibet', '
Q: Who eradicated the Sakya viceregal regime? 
A: the Phagmodru myriarch Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen', '
Q: Which dynasty became ruler of Tibet?  
A: the Phagmodrupa Dynasty']
In 1368, a Han Chinese revolt known as the Red Turban Rebellion toppled the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China. Zhu Yuanzhang then established the Ming dynasty, ruling as the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398). It is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the civil war going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang dynasty. Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer Kham region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who created the Ming Dynasty? 
A: Zhu Yuanzhang', '
Q: Who caused the Yuan dynasty to fall?
A: the Red Turban Rebellion', '
Q: Who ruled as the the Hongwu Emperor?
A: Zhu Yuanzhang', '
Q: What years did Zhu Yuanzhang rule as the Hongwu Emperor?
A: 1368–1398', '
Q: Who did the Hongwu Emperor send convoys to?
A: Yuan officeholders']
As evident in his imperial edicts, the Hongwu Emperor was well aware of the Buddhist link between Tibet and China and wanted to foster it. Rolpe Dorje, 4th Karmapa Lama (1340–1383) rejected the Hongwu Emperor's invitation, although he did send some disciples as envoys to the court in Nanjing. The Hongwu Emperor also entrusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain Buddhist texts.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who was the fourth Karmapa Lama?
A: Rolpe Dorje', '
Q: Who rejected an invitation by the Hongwu Emperor?
A: Rolpe Dorje', '
Q: What did the the Hongwu Emperor want to continue to promote?
A: the Buddhist link between Tibet and China', '
Q: Who did Rolpe Dorje send as envoys to court in Nanjing?
A: disciples']
However, the early Ming government enacted a law, later rescinded, which forbade Han Chinese to learn the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. There is little detailed evidence of Chinese—especially lay Chinese—studying Tibetan Buddhism until the Republican era (1912–1949). Despite these missions on behalf of the Hongwu Emperor, Morris Rossabi writes that the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424) "was the first Ming ruler actively to seek an extension of relations with Tibet."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who created a law that did not allow Han Chinese to learn the beliefs of Tibetan Buddhism?
A: Ming government', '
Q: What years did the Yongle Emperor reign? 
A: 1402–1424', '
Q: Who worked towards obtaining a extension of relations with Tibet?
A: the Yongle Emperor']
According to the official Twenty-Four Histories, the History of Ming compiled in 1739 by the subsequent Qing dynasty (1644–1912), the Ming dynasty established the "É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (Chinese: 俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet and installed the "Ü-Tsang Itinerant High Commandery" and "Amdo-Kham Itinerant High Commandery" to administer Kham. The Mingshi states that administrative offices were set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery, three Pacification Commissioner's Offices, six Expedition Commissioner's Offices, four Wanhu offices (myriarchies, in command of 10,000 households each) and seventeen Qianhu offices (chiliarchies, each in command of 1,000 households).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What years did the Qing dynasty rule?
A: 1644–1912', '
Q: what year was the history of Ming produced? 
A: 1739', '
Q: What did the Ming dynasty create?
A: É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office', '
Q: How many Qianhu offices were there?
A: seventeen Qianhu offices', '
Q: where was the É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office established?
A: western Tibet']
The Ming court appointed three Princes of Dharma (法王) and five Princes (王), and granted many other titles, such as Grand State Tutors (大國師) and State Tutors (國師), to the important schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Karma Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelug. According to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government and were subject to the rule of law. Yet Van Praag describes the distinct and long-lasting Tibetan law code established by the Phagmodru ruler Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen as one of many reforms to revive old Imperial Tibetan traditions.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many princes of Dharma were assigned by the Ming court?
A: three', '
Q: Who established the Tibetan law code?
A: Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen', '
Q: Who was the Phagmodru ruler?
A: Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen']
The late Turrell V. Wylie, a former professor of the University of Washington, and Li Tieh-tseng argue that the reliability of the heavily censored History of Ming as a credible source on Sino-Tibetan relations is questionable, in the light of modern scholarship. Other historians also assert that these Ming titles were nominal and did not actually confer the authority that the earlier Yuan titles had. Van Praag writes that the "numerous economically motivated Tibetan missions to the Ming Court are referred to as 'tributary missions' in the Ming Shih." Van Praag writes that these "tributary missions" were simply prompted by China's need for horses from Tibet, since a viable horse market in Mongol lands was closed as a result of incessant conflict. Morris Rossabi also writes that "Tibet, which had extensive contacts with China during the Yuan, scarcely had diplomatic relations with the Ming."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: who was a professor of the University of Washington?
A: Turrell V. Wylie', '
Q: Who had a large amount of contacts with china during Yuan?
A: Tibet', '
Q: Who believed that Tibet barely had any diplomatic relations with the Ming?
A: Morris Rossabi']
Historians disagree on what the relationship was between the Ming court and Tibet and whether or not Ming China had sovereignty over Tibet. Van Praag writes that Chinese court historians viewed Tibet as an independent foreign tributary and had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship. The historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa supports van Praag's position. However, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Shakabpa are "fallacies".

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Who supported van Praag's beliefs? 
A: historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa", '
Q: Who did not agree with van Praag and Shakabpa?
A: Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain']
Wang and Nyima argue that the Ming emperor sent edicts to Tibet twice in the second year of the Ming dynasty, and demonstrated that he viewed Tibet as a significant region to pacify by urging various Tibetan tribes to submit to the authority of the Ming court. They note that at the same time, the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as ruler of areas of Tibet, went to Nanjing in 1371 to pay tribute and show his allegiance to the Ming court, bringing with him the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court. They also state that since successors of lamas granted the title of "prince" had to travel to the Ming court to renew this title, and since lamas called themselves princes, the Ming court therefore had "full sovereignty over Tibet." They state that the Ming dynasty, by issuing imperial edicts to invite ex-Yuan officials to the court for official positions in the early years of its founding, won submission from ex-Yuan religious and administrative leaders in the Tibetan areas, and thereby incorporated Tibetan areas into the rule of the Ming court. Thus, they conclude, the Ming court won the power to rule Tibetan areas formerly under the rule of the Yuan dynasty.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who believed that the Ming court had full sovereignty over Tibet?
A: Wang and Nyima', '
Q: What year did Wang and Nyima believe that the Mongol Prince Punala went to Nanjing?
A: 1371', '
Q: What did the lamas called themselves?
A: princes', '
Q: What edicts did the Ming issue?
A: imperial edicts']
Journalist and author Thomas Laird, in his book The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, writes that Wang and Nyima present the government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China in their Historical Status of China's Tibet, and fail to realize that China was "absorbed into a larger, non-Chinese political unit" during the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which Wang and Nyima paint as a characteristic Chinese dynasty succeeded by the Ming. Laird asserts that the ruling Mongol khans never administered Tibet as part of China and instead ruled them as separate territories, comparing the Mongols with the British who colonized India and New Zealand, yet stating this does not make India part of New Zealand as a consequence. Of later Mongol and Tibetan accounts interpreting the Mongol conquest of Tibet, Laird asserts that "they, like all non-Chinese historical narratives, never portray the Mongol subjugation of Tibet as a Chinese one."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who wrote the book The Story of Tibet?
A: Journalist and author Thomas Laird', '
Q: who colonized India and New Zealand?
A: the British', "
Q: Who's viewpoint does Thomas Laird believe Wang and Nyima present?
A: the government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China"]
The Columbia Encyclopedia distinguishes between the Yuan dynasty and the other Mongol Empire khanates of Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde. It describes the Yuan dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271." The Encyclopedia Americana describes the Yuan dynasty as "the line of Mongol rulers in China" and adds that the Mongols "proclaimed a Chinese-style Yüan dynasty at Khanbaliq (Beijing)." The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan dynasty "adopted Chinese political and cultural models; ruling from their capitals in Dadu, they assumed the role of Chinese emperors," although Tibetologist Thomas Laird dismissed the Yuan dynasty as a non-Chinese polity and plays down its Chinese characteristics. The Metropolitan Museum of Art also noted that in spite of the gradual assimilation of Yuan monarchs, the Mongol rulers largely ignored the literati and imposed harsh policies discriminating against southern Chinese. In his Kublai Khan: His Life and Times, Rossabi explains that Kublai "created government institutions that either resembled or were the same as the traditional Chinese ones", and he "wished to signal to the Chinese that he intended to adopt the trappings and style of a Chinese ruler".

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How did the The Columbia Encyclopedia describe the Yuan dynasty?
A: A Mongol dynasty of China', '
Q: How did the Encyclopedia Americana describe the Yuan Dynasty?
A: the line of Mongol rulers in China', '
Q: What did Thomas Laird dismiss the Yuan dynasty as?
A: a non-Chinese polity', '
Q: Who wrote the book Khubilai Khan?
A: Rossabi', '
Q: When did the yuan dynasty start and end?
A: 1271 to 1368']
Nevertheless, the ethno-geographic caste hierarchy favoring the Mongols and other ethnicities were accorded higher status than the Han Chinese majority. Although Han Chinese who were recruited as advisers were often actually more influential than high officials, their status was not as well defined. Kublai also abolished the imperial examinations of China's civil service legacy, which was not reinstated until Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan's reign (1311–1320). Rossabi writes that Kublai recognized that in order to rule China, "he had to employ Chinese advisors and officials, yet he could not rely totally on Chinese advisers because he had to maintain a delicate balancing act between ruling the sedentary civilization of China and preserving the cultural identity and values of the Mongols." And "in governing China, he was concerned with the interests of his Chinese subjects, but also with exploiting the resources of the empire for his own aggrandizement. His motivations and objectives alternated from one to the other throughout his reign," according to Rossabi. Van Praag writes in The Status of Tibet that the Tibetans and Mongols, on the other hand, upheld a dual system of rule and an interdependent relationship that legitimated the succession of Mongol khans as universal Buddhist rulers, or chakravartin. Van Praag writes that "Tibet remained a unique part of the Empire and was never fully integrated into it," citing examples such as a licensed border market that existed between China and Tibet during the Yuan.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan reign?
A: 1311–1320', '
Q: During the Yuan what existed between China and Tibet? 
A: a licensed border market', '
Q: Who was granted higher status than the Han Chinese majority?
A: the Mongols and other ethnicities']
The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is that the Ming implemented a policy of managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting titles and setting up administrative organs over Tibet. The State Council Information Office of the People's Republic states that the Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet. It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming dynasty. For example, an edict of the Hongwu Emperor in 1373 appointed the Tibetan leader Choskunskyabs as the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office, stating:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who abolished the policy council?
A: the Ming', '
Q: What was the Tibetan leader  Choskunskyabs  appointed as? 
A: the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office', "
Q: Who governed most areas of Tibet?
A: Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office"]
Chen Qingying, Professor of History and Director of the History Studies Institute under the China Tibetology Research Center in Beijing, writes that the Ming court conferred new official positions on ex-Yuan Tibetan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions. Of the county (zong or dzong) leaders of Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, Chen states that when "the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang." The official posts that the Ming court established in Tibet, such as senior and junior commanders, offices of Qianhu (in charge of 1,000 households), and offices of Wanhu (in charge of 10,000 households), were all hereditary positions according to Chen, but he asserts that "the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor," while old imperial mandates had to be returned to the Ming court for renewal.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Where is the China Tibetology Research Center located?
A: Beijing', '
Q: Who was the Director of the History Studies Institute?
A: Chen Qingying', '
Q: How many households were the offices of Qianhu in charge of?
A: 1,000 households', '
Q: How many households were the offices of Wanhu in charge of?
A: 10,000 households']
According to Tibetologist John Powers, Tibetan sources counter this narrative of titles granted by the Chinese to Tibetans with various titles which the Tibetans gave to the Chinese emperors and their officials. Tribute missions from Tibetan monasteries to the Chinese court brought back not only titles, but large, commercially valuable gifts which could subsequently be sold. The Ming emperors sent invitations to ruling lamas, but the lamas sent subordinates rather than coming themselves, and no Tibetan ruler ever explicitly accepted the role of being a vassal of the Ming.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What was the name of the Tibetologist?
A: John Powers', '
Q: Who did the Ming emperors send invitations to?
A: ruling lamas', '
Q: When the lamas received an invite from the emperors, who did they send instead? 
A: subordinates']
Hans Bielenstein writes that as far back as the Han dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE), the Han Chinese government "maintained the fiction" that the foreign officials administering the various "Dependent States" and oasis city-states of the Western Regions (composed of the Tarim Basin and oasis of Turpan) were true Han representatives due to the Han government's conferral of Chinese seals and seal cords to them.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What was the western regions composed of?
A: the Tarim Basin and oasis of Turpan', '
Q: Who believed that they were the true Han Western representatives? 
A: foreign officials']
Wang and Nyima state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364) by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" (sic properly sde-srid or desi) is seldom mentioned. Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Phagmodrupa Dynasty maintained a Central-local government relation." The Tai Situpa is even supposed to have written in his will: "In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What title was given by the Yuan court to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen ?
A: Education Minister', '
Q: What Tibetan title was hardly ever mentioned when referring to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen?
A: Degsi', '
Q: What dynasty kept a Central-local government relation with the Yuan imperial court?
A: Phagmodrupa Dynasty', "
Q: What two people claim the title of Education Minister was often seen next to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen's name in Tibetan texts?
A: Wang and Nyima", '
Q: Who wrote in their will that they received loving care from the emperor in the east?
A: The Tai Situpa']
However, Lok-Ham Chan, a professor of history at the University of Washington, writes that Changchub Gyaltsen's aims were to recreate the old Tibetan Kingdom that existed during the Chinese Tang dynasty, to build "nationalist sentiment" amongst Tibetans, and to "remove all traces of Mongol suzerainty." Georges Dreyfus, a professor of religion at Williams College, writes that it was Changchub Gyaltsen who adopted the old administrative system of Songtsän Gampo (c. 605–649)—the first leader of the Tibetan Empire to establish Tibet as a strong power—by reinstating its legal code of punishments and administrative units. For example, instead of the 13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, Changchub Gyaltsen divided Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon) who had to conform to old rituals and wear clothing styles of old Imperial Tibet. Van Praag asserts that Changchub Gyaltsen's ambitions were to "restore to Tibet the glories of its Imperial Age" by reinstating secular administration, promoting "national culture and traditions," and installing a law code that survived into the 20th century.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who divided Central Tibet into districts? 
A: Changchub Gyaltsen', '
Q: Who strongly believed Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to restore the glories of its Imperial age to Tibet?
A: Van Praag', '
Q: What university was Lok-Ham Chan a professor at?
A: the University of Washington', '
Q: What did Lok-Ham Chan claim  Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to remove?
A: all traces of Mongol suzerainty']
According to Chen, the Ming officer of Hezhou (modern day Linxia) informed the Hongwu Emperor that the general situation in Dbus and Gtsang "was under control," and so he suggested to the emperor that he offer the second Phagmodru ruler, Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen, an official title. According to the Records of the Founding Emperor, the Hongwu Emperor issued an edict granting the title "Initiation State Master" to Sagya Gyaincain, while the latter sent envoys to the Ming court to hand over his jade seal of authority along with tribute of colored silk and satin, statues of the Buddha, Buddhist scriptures, and sarira.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who did the Hongwu Emperor grant the title Initiation State Master to?
A: Sagya Gyaincain', '
Q: Who suggested to the emperor that an official title be granted to second Phagmodru ruler?
A: the Ming officer of Hezhou', '
Q: Who was the second Phagmodru ruler?
A: Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen', '
Q: Who told the emperor that the situation in Dbus and Gtsang were under control?
A: the Ming officer of Hezhou', '
Q: Where were the envoys sent?
A: to the Ming court']
Dreyfus writes that after the Phagmodrupa lost its centralizing power over Tibet in 1434, several attempts by other families to establish hegemonies failed over the next two centuries until 1642 with the 5th Dalai Lama's effective hegemony over Tibet.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who lost their power over Tibet?
A: the Phagmodrupa', '
Q: What year did the Phagmodrupa lose their power over Tibet?
A: 1434', '
Q: What year did the 5th Dalai lama start to dominate over Tibet?
A: 1642', '
Q: What did the other families fail to establish?
A: hegemonies']