romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
Discussions of strategy in the mid Ming dynasty focused primarily on recovery of the Ordos region, which the Mongols used as a rallying base to stage raids into Ming China. Norbu states that the Ming dynasty, preoccupied with the Mongol threat to the north, could not spare additional armed forces to enforce or back up their claim of sovereignty over Tibet; instead, they relied on "Confucian instruments of tribute relations" of heaping unlimited number of titles and gifts on Tibetan lamas through acts of diplomacy. Sperling states that the delicate relationship between the Ming and Tibet was "the last time a united China had to deal with an independent Tibet," that there was a potential for armed conflict at their borders, and that the ultimate goal of Ming foreign policy with Tibet was not subjugation but "avoidance of any kind of Tibetan threat." P. Christiaan Klieger argues that the Ming court's patronage of high Tibetan lamas "was designed to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did the mid Ming dynasty discussion focus mainly on?
A: recovery of the Ordos region', '
Q: Who used the the Ordos region as a place to stage raids? 
A: the Mongols', '
Q: Where were the Mongols trying to raise? 
A: Ming China', '
Q: Why did P. Christiaan Klieger believe that the Ming court supported high Tibetan lamas?
A: to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes']
Historians Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi argue that the Ming upheld a "divide-and-rule" policy towards a weak and politically fragmented Tibet after the Sakya regime had fallen. Chan writes that this was perhaps the calculated strategy of the Yongle Emperor, as exclusive patronage to one Tibetan sect would have given it too much regional power. Sperling finds no textual evidence in either Chinese or Tibetan sources to support this thesis of Petech and Hisashi. Norbu asserts that their thesis is largely based on the list of Ming titles conferred on Tibetan lamas rather than "comparative analysis of developments in China and Tibet." Rossabi states that this theory "attributes too much influence to the Chinese," pointing out that Tibet was already politically divided when the Ming dynasty began. Rossabi also discounts the "divide-and-rule" theory on the grounds of the Yongle Emperor's failed attempt to build a strong relationship with the fifth Karmapa—one which he hoped would parallel Kublai Khan's earlier relationship with the Sakya Phagpa lama. Instead, the Yongle Emperor followed the Karmapa's advice of giving patronage to many different Tibetan lamas.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What policy does Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi claim the Ming held towards the Tibet?
A: divide-and-rule', '
Q: When did the Ming hold the divide and rule policy?
A: after the Sakya regime had fallen', '
Q: Who did Yongle Emperor fail to build a solid relationship with?
A: fifth Karmapa', '
Q: Who did the Yongle Emperor give patronage to?
A: many different Tibetan lamas']
The Association for Asian Studies states that there is no known written evidence to suggest that later leaders of the Gelug—Gendün Drup (1391–1474) and Gendün Gyatso (1475–1571)—had any contacts with Ming China. These two religious leaders were preoccupied with an overriding concern for dealing with the powerful secular Rinpungpa princes, who were patrons and protectors of the Karma Kargyu lamas. The Rinpungpa leaders were relatives of the Phagmodrupa, yet their authority shifted over time from simple governors to rulers in their own right over large areas of Ü-Tsang. The prince of Rinbung occupied Lhasa in 1498 and excluded the Gelug from attending New Years ceremonies and prayers, the most important event in the Gelug. While the task of New Years prayers in Lhasa was granted to the Karmapa and others, Gendün Gyatso traveled in exile looking for allies. However, it was not until 1518 that the secular Phagmodru ruler captured Lhasa from the Rinbung, and thereafter the Gelug was given rights to conduct the New Years prayer. When the Drikung Kagyu abbot of Drigung Monastery threatened Lhasa in 1537, Gendün Gyatso was forced to abandon the Drepung Monastery, although he eventually returned.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who were the Rinpungpa leaders related to?
A: the Phagmodrupa', '
Q: When did the the prince of Rinbung occupy Lhasa?
A: 1498', '
Q: What was the most important event to the Gelug?
A: New Years ceremonies and prayers', '
Q: When was Gelug was given the right to conduct the New Years prayer?
A: 1518']
The Zhengde Emperor (r. 1505–1521), who enjoyed the company of lamas at court despite protests from the censorate, had heard tales of a "living Buddha" which he desired to host at the Ming capital; this was none other than the Rinpung-supported Mikyö Dorje, 8th Karmapa Lama then occupying Lhasa. Zhengde's top advisors made every attempt to dissuade him from inviting this lama to court, arguing that Tibetan Buddhism was wildly heterodox and unorthodox. Despite protests by the Grand Secretary Liang Chu, in 1515 the Zhengde Emperor sent his eunuch official Liu Yun of the Palace Chancellery on a mission to invite this Karmapa to Beijing. Liu commanded a fleet of hundreds of ships requisitioned along the Yangtze, consuming 2,835 g (100 oz) of silver a day in food expenses while stationed for a year in Chengdu of Sichuan. After procurring necessary gifts for the mission, he departed with a cavalry force of about 1,000 troops. When the request was delivered, the Karmapa lama refused to leave Tibet despite the Ming force brought to coerce him. The Karmapa launched a surprise ambush on Liu Yun's camp, seizing all the goods and valuables while killing or wounding half of Liu Yun's entire escort. After this fiasco, Liu fled for his life, but only returned to Chengdu several years later to find that the Zhengde Emperor had died.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the Zhengde Emperor rule? 
A: 1505–1521', "
Q: Who's company did the Zhengde Emperor enjoy?
A: the company of lamas", '
Q: Who was the 8th Karmapa Lama?
A: Mikyö Dorje']
Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s Department of Central Eurasia Studies, writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction." He writes that Chinese writers of the early 20th century were of the view that Tibet was not annexed by China until the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion during the 18th century. He also states that Chinese writers of the early 20th century described Tibet as a feudal dependency of China, not an integral part of it. Sperling states that this is because "Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus" and also that "China's intervening Ming dynasty ... had no control over Tibet." He writes that the Ming relationship with Tibet is problematic for China’s insistence of its unbroken sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century. As for the Tibetan view that Tibet was never subject to the rule of the Yuan or Qing emperors of China, Sperling also discounts this by stating that Tibet was "subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers" and that even Tibetans described themselves as subjects of these emperors.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Who said Tibet  wasn't an integral part of of China?
A: Chinese writers of the early 20th century", "
Q: What does Sperling claim did not have any control over Tibet?
A: China's intervening Ming dynasty", "
Q: Since what century has Sperling described Ming and Tibet's relation being problematic for China? 
A: the 13th century", '
Q: When was the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion?
A: the 18th century']
Josef Kolmaš, a sinologist, Tibetologist, and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government." Yet he states that this was a radical change in regards to all previous eras of Sino-Tibetan relations.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: During Which dynasty does Josef Kolmaš claim Tibet was considered an organic part of China?
A: the Qing dynasty', '
Q: Josef Kolmaš  states that Tibet became subject to what government? 
A: the Chinese central government']
P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron and priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism. According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron," respectively. He adds that "Although agreements were made between Tibetan leaders and Mongol khans, Ming and Qing emperors, it was the Republic of China and its Communist successors that assumed the former imperial tributaries and subject states as integral parts of the Chinese nation-state."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger claim to have had a mutual role of religious prelate?
A: the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans', '
Q: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger believe undertook the former imperial tributaries?
A: the Republic of China and its Communist successors', '
Q: Where does P. Christiaan Klieger work?
A: the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco', '
Q: Who was the  vice royalty of the Sakya regime established by?
A: the Mongols', '
Q: The Sakya regime established what kind of relationship between the Tibetans and Mongol converts?
A: patron and priest relationship']
China Daily, a CCP-controlled news organization since 1981, states in a 2008 article that although there were dynastic changes after Tibet was incorporated into the territory of Yuan dynasty's China in the 13th century, "Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China." It also states that the Ming dynasty "inherited the right to rule Tibet" from the Yuan dynasty, and repeats the claims in the Mingshi about the Ming establishing two itinerant high commands over Tibet. China Daily states that the Ming handled Tibet's civil administration, appointed all leading officials of these administrative organs, and punished Tibetans who broke the law. The party-controlled People's Daily, the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency, and the state-controlled national television network China Central Television posted the same article that China Daily had, the only difference being their headlines and some additional text.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: When was Tibet included into the territory of Yuan dynasty's China?
A: the 13th century", '
Q: Who was said to have gained the right to rule Tibet?
A: the Ming dynasty', '
Q: When was China Daily started?
A: 1981', '
Q: Who does the article claim had two itinerant high commands over Tibet?
A: the Ming', '
Q: According to article Tibet has remained under what jurisdiction?
A: the central government of China']
During the reign of the Jiajing Emperor (r. 1521–1567), the native Chinese ideology of Daoism was fully sponsored at the Ming court, while Tibetan Vajrayana and even Chinese Buddhism were ignored or suppressed. Even the History of Ming states that the Tibetan lamas discontinued their trips to Ming China and its court at this point. Grand Secretary Yang Tinghe under Jiajing was determined to break the eunuch influence at court which typified the Zhengde era, an example being the costly escort of the eunuch Liu Yun as described above in his failed mission to Tibet. The court eunuchs were in favor of expanding and building new commercial ties with foreign countries such as Portugal, which Zhengde deemed permissible since he had an affinity for foreign and exotic people.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the Jiajing Emperor reign? 
A: 1521–1567', '
Q: What ideology was sponsored at the Ming court?
A: the native Chinese ideology of Daoism', '
Q: Who stopped their trips to Ming China?
A: the Tibetan lamas', '
Q: Who was the Grand Secretary under Jiajing?
A: Yang Tinghe', '
Q: Who broke the eunuch influence at court?
A: Yang Tinghe']
With the death of Zhengde and ascension of Jiajing, the politics at court shifted in favor of the Neo-Confucian establishment which not only rejected the Portuguese embassy of Fernão Pires de Andrade (d. 1523), but had a predisposed animosity towards Tibetan Buddhism and lamas. Evelyn S. Rawski, a professor in the Department of History of the University of Pittsburgh, writes that the Ming's unique relationship with Tibetan prelates essentially ended with Jiajing's reign while Ming influence in the Amdo region was supplanted by the Mongols.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Who was Zhengde's successor? 
A: Jiajing", '
Q: What establishment did the politics at court shift in favor of? 
A: Neo-Confucian establishment', '
Q: Which embassy did the Neo-Confucian establishment reject?
A: the Portuguese embassy', '
Q: Who did the Neo-Confucian establishment have animosity towards?
A: Tibetan Buddhism and lamas', "
Q: Evelyn S. Rawski claims that Ming's relationship with Tibetan prelates ended during who's reign?
A: Jiajing"]
Meanwhile, the Tumed Mongols began moving into the Kokonor region (modern Qinghai), raiding the Ming Chinese frontier and even as far as the suburbs of Beijing under Altan Khan (1507–1582). Klieger writes that Altan Khan's presence in the west effectively reduced Ming influence and contact with Tibet. After Altan Khan made peace with the Ming dynasty in 1571, he invited the third hierarch of the Gelug—Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588)—to meet him in Amdo (modern Qinghai) in 1578, where he accidentally bestowed him and his two predecessors with the title of Dalai Lama—"Ocean Teacher". The full title was "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", "Vajradhara" meaning "Holder of the Thunderbolt" in Sanskrit. Victoria Huckenpahler notes that Vajradhara is considered by Buddhists to be the primordial Buddha of limitless and all-pervasive beneficial qualities, a being that "represents the ultimate aspect of enlightenment." Goldstein writes that Sönam Gyatso also enhanced Altan Khan's standing by granting him the title "king of religion, majestic purity". Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama officially recognized Altan Khan as the "Protector of the Faith".

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What region did the Tumed Mongols move into?
A: the Kokonor region', '
Q: Which frontier did the Tumed Mongols raid?
A: the Ming Chinese frontier', '
Q: The presence of the Altan Khan in the west reduced whos influence? 
A: the Ming', '
Q: When did Altan Khan make peace with the Ming dynasty?
A: 1571', '
Q: Who did Altan Khan invite to meet him in Amdo?
A: the third hierarch of the Gelug—Sönam Gyatso']
Laird writes that Altan Khan abolished the native Mongol practices of shamanism and blood sacrifice, while the Mongol princes and subjects were coerced by Altan to convert to Gelug Buddhism—or face execution if they persisted in their shamanistic ways. Committed to their religious leader, Mongol princes began requesting the Dalai Lama to bestow titles on them, which demonstrated "the unique fusion of religious and political power" wielded by the Dalai Lama, as Laird writes. Kolmaš states that the spiritual and secular Mongol-Tibetan alliance of the 13th century was renewed by this alliance constructed by Altan Khan and Sönam Gyatso. Van Praag writes that this restored the original Mongol patronage of a Tibetan lama and "to this day, Mongolians are among the most devout followers of the Gelugpa and the Dalai Lama." Angela F. Howard writes that this unique relationship not only provided the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama with religious and political authority in Tibet, but that Altan Khan gained "enormous power among the entire Mongol population."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What practice did Altan Khan put to an end?
A: the native Mongol practices of shamanism and blood sacrifice', '
Q: Who did Altan Khan persuade to convert to Gelug Buddhism?
A: the Mongol princes and subjects', '
Q: What did Altan Khan threaten the Mongol princes and subjects with if they did not convert?
A: execution', '
Q: Who did the Mongol princes ask to grant them titles?
A: the Dalai Lama', '
Q: Why did the Mongol princes ask for titles?
A: Committed to their religious leader']
Rawski writes that Altan Khan's conversion to the Gelug "can be interpreted as an attempt to expand his authority in his conflict with his nominal superior, Tümen Khan." To further cement the Mongol-Tibetan alliance, the great-grandson of Altan Khan—the 4th Dalai Lama (1589–1616)—was made the fourth Dalai Lama. In 1642, the 5th Dalai Lama (1617–1682) became the first to wield effective political control over Tibet.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Who was Altan Khan's nominal superior?
A: Tümen Khan", '
Q: To make the Mongol-Tibetan alliance stronger who became the 4th Dalai Lama?
A: the great-grandson of Altan Khan', '
Q: Who was the first Dalai Lama to have political control over Tibet?
A: the 5th Dalai Lama', '
Q: When did the 5th Dalai Lama gain political control over Tibet?
A: In 1642']
Sonam Gyatso, after being granted the grandiose title by Altan Khan, departed for Tibet. Before he left, he sent a letter and gifts to the Ming Chinese official Zhang Juzheng (1525–1582), which arrived on March 12, 1579. Sometime in August or September of that year, Sonam Gyatso's representative stationed with Altan Khan received a return letter and gift from the Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620), who also conferred upon Sonam Gyatso a title; this was the first official contact between a Dalai Lama and a government of China. However, Laird states that when Wanli invited him to Beijing, the Dalai Lama declined the offer due to a prior commitment, even though he was only 400 km (250 mi) from Beijing. Laird adds that "the power of the Ming emperor did not reach very far at the time." Although not recorded in any official Chinese records, Sonam Gyatso's biography states that Wanli again conferred titles on Sonam Gyatso in 1588, and invited him to Beijing for a second time, but Sonam Gyatso was unable to visit China as he died the same year in Mongolia working with Altan Khan's son to further the spread of Buddhism.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who was given the grandiose title?
A: Sonam Gyatso', '
Q: Who granted Sonam Gyatso the title of grandiose?
A: Altan Khan', '
Q: Who did Sonam Gyatso send gifts to?
A: Zhang Juzheng', '
Q: Who was the Ming Chinese official?
A: Zhang Juzheng', '
Q: Where did Sonam Gyatso die?
A: Mongolia']
Of the third Dalai Lama, China Daily states that the "Ming dynasty showed him special favor by allowing him to pay tribute." China Daily then says that Sonam Gyatso was granted the title Dorjichang or Vajradhara Dalai Lama in 1587 [sic!], but China Daily does not mention who granted him the title. Without mentioning the role of the Mongols, China Daily states that it was the successive Qing dynasty which established the title of Dalai Lama and his power in Tibet: "In 1653, the Qing emperor granted an honorific title to the fifth Dalai Lama and then did the same for the fifth Panchen Lama in 1713, officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, and their political and religious status in Tibet."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who did the Ming dynasty showed favors to?
A: the third Dalai Lama', '
Q: What was the the third Dalai Lama allowed to do?
A: pay tribute', '
Q: What title was Sonam Gyatso granted in 1587?
A: the title Dorjichang or Vajradhara Dalai Lama', '
Q: In 1653 who did the Qing emperor grant a title to?
A: the fifth Dalai Lama', '
Q: In 1713 who did the Qing emperor grant a title to?
A: the fifth Panchen Lama']
Chen states that the fourth Dalai Lama Yonten Gyatso was granted the title "Master of Vajradhara" and an official seal by the Wanli Emperor in 1616. This was noted in the Biography of the Fourth Dalai Lama, which stated that one Soinam Lozui delivered the seal of the Emperor to the Dalai Lama. The Wanli Emperor had invited Yonten Gyatso to Beijing in 1616, but just like his predecessor he died before being able to make the journey.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What title was the fourth Dalai Lama granted? 
A: Master of Vajradhara', '
Q: Who was the fourth Dalai Lama?
A: Yonten Gyatso', '
Q: When did the Wanli Emperor grant the title Master of Vajradhara to Yonten Gyatso?
A: 1616', '
Q: Who did the Wanli Emperor invite to Beijing in 1616?
A: Yonten Gyatso', "
Q: Why didn't Yonten Gyatso make it to Beijing?
A: he died"]
Kolmaš writes that, as the Mongol presence in Tibet increased, culminating in the conquest of Tibet by a Mongol leader in 1642, the Ming emperors "viewed with apparent unconcern these developments in Tibet." He adds that the Ming court's lack of concern for Tibet was one of the reasons why the Mongols pounced on the chance to reclaim their old vassal of Tibet and "fill once more the political vacuum in that country." On the mass Mongol conversion to Tibetan Buddhism under Altan Khan, Laird writes that "the Chinese watched these developments with interest, though few Chinese ever became devout Tibetan Buddhists."

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Who's presence increased in Tibet?
A: the Mongols", '
Q: What were the Mongols trying to reclaim?
A: their old vassal of Tibet', '
Q: When did the conquest of Tibet reach its peak?
A: 1642', "
Q: Who's lack of concern helped the Mongols jump at a chance to reclaim their old vassal of Tibet?
A: the Ming court"]
In 1565, the powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, Karma Tseten who styled himself as the Tsangpa, "the one of Tsang", and established his base of power at Shigatse. The second successor of this first Tsang king, Karma Phuntsok Namgyal, took control of the whole of Central Tibet (Ü-Tsang), reigning from 1611–1621. Despite this, the leaders of Lhasa still claimed their allegiance to the Phagmodru as well as the Gelug, while the Ü-Tsang king allied with the Karmapa. Tensions rose between the nationalistic Ü-Tsang ruler and the Mongols who safeguarded their Mongol Dalai Lama in Lhasa. The fourth Dalai Lama refused to give an audience to the Ü-Tsang king, which sparked a conflict as the latter began assaulting Gelug monasteries. Chen writes of the speculation over the fourth Dalai Lama's mysterious death and the plot of the Ü-Tsang king to have him murdered for "cursing" him with illness, although Chen writes that the murder was most likely the result of a feudal power struggle. In 1618, only two years after Yonten Gyatso died, the Gelug and the Karma Kargyu went to war, the Karma Kargyu supported by the secular Ü-Tsang king. The Ü-Tsang ruler had a large number of Gelugpa lamas killed, occupied their monasteries at Drepung and Sera, and outlawed any attempts to find another Dalai Lama. In 1621, the Ü-Tsang king died and was succeeded by his young son Karma Tenkyong, an event which stymied the war effort as the latter accepted the six-year-old Lozang Gyatso as the new Dalai Lama. Despite the new Dalai Lama's diplomatic efforts to maintain friendly relations with the new Ü-Tsang ruler, Sonam Rapten (1595–1657), the Dalai Lama's chief steward and treasurer at Drepung, made efforts to overthrow the Ü-Tsang king, which led to another conflict. In 1633, the Gelugpas and several thousand Mongol adherents defeated the Ü-Tsang king's troops near Lhasa before a peaceful negotiation was settled. Goldstein writes that in this the "Mongols were again playing a significant role in Tibetan affairs, this time as the military arm of the Dalai Lama."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When were the Rinbung princes overthrown?
A: 1565', '
Q: Who took control of the whole of Central Tibet?
A: Karma Phuntsok Namgyal', '
Q: When did Karma Phuntsok Namgyal reign?
A: 1611–1621', '
Q: Who did Ü-Tsang king have an alliance with?
A: the Karmapa', '
Q: Who refused an audience with the Ü-Tsang king?
A: The fourth Dalai Lama']