A History of Porters on Everest: Part 3

Previously we discussed how the 1924 British Mount Everest Expedition saw the beginning of the long reversal of the "Sahib - Porter" system to the more equal partnership when Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made the first known ascent in 1953.

In this post we take a break from Everest to discuss an Anglo-Tibetan diplomatic controversy which resulted in Tibet closing its borders to British climbers until 1933.

An Interlude: The Affair of the Dancing Lamas

Following the 1924 expedition, John Noel compiled his film to produce The Epic of Everest, the official film of the expedition. As part of efforts to promote the film, five Tibetan monks, of whom only one was a Lama, visited Britain from 1924 to 1925. As there was no footage of the upper reaches of the mountain, and it was unknown if the summit had been reached, Noel decided to use the monks to add "large doses of colour". During screenings of the film, the stage was set to appear like a Tibetan courtyard, complete with a backdrop of painted Himalayan peaks. Before the film commenced, the monks would file onto the stage and perform pseudo-religious music, chanting and dancing. The headline promoting the show in the Daily Sketch was "High Dignitaries of Tibetan Church Reach London; Bishop to dance on Stage; Music from Skulls". While the performers were genuine monks, they were not from the Everest region and they had been persuaded to leave Tibet without the permission of their superiors. At one point the monks were even taken to the London Zoo where they were shown the llamas, much to the delight of the accompanying press. The tour was a critical and public success and, after touring Britain and Germany, over one million people in the USA and Canada attended screenings. Despite this success, the film's production company Explorers' Films went bankrupt and the Mount Everest Committee were required to send £150 in order to enable the monks to return to India. Only a few returned to Tibet, and those who did were severely punished for their part in the performance.

Understandably, the government of Tibet believed that the film, and its accompanying side show, had ridiculed their country and culture. They were particularly offended by a scene showing a man delousing a child and then proceeding to eat the lice. In response they lodged an official diplomatic protest with the British government. The Dalai Lama regarded the film and performances as a religious affront and called for the monks to be arrested. While Noel had initially claimed he had permission to take the monks from Tibet, the official enquiry found that "[his] statement about the monks being taken to England is in direct variance with the facts". This led the Mount Everest Committee to make a statement "[regretting] very deeply the humiliating position in which they were placed" by Noel's statements. In a note demanding the return of the monks, the prime minister of Tibet stated that "for the future, we cannot give permission to go to Tibet" and no expeditions would take place until 1933.

In Tibet the matter coincided with social uprising in response to the modernisation and militarisation being introduced by both the Dalai Lama and Tsarong Dzasa, the head of the army. The governing religious conservatives were deeply opposed to any British presence of influence and correctly suspected that Britain was secretly attempting to provoke a military uprising. This ultimately failed and Tsarong was forced to flee to Sikkim. The long term impact of this event can be seen in the 1950 invasion of Tibet by Chinese forces, as the Tibetan army was no longer an effective force and could not offer any tangible resistance.

The Mount Everest Committee, unable to distance themselves from the film, attempted to lay the blame elsewhere for the diplomatic incident and ban on expeditions. They found their scapegoat in John Hazard, a member of the 1924 expedition, who, after leaving Mount Everest had travelled up the West Rongbuk Glacier to undertake further surveying. In doing so he travelled north to Lhatse and the upper part of the Tsangpo River, which was beyond his approved remit. John Hazard’s detour was used by the Mount Everest Committee

to blame him for the diplomatic scandal and subsequent ban on expeditions. This tarnished his reputation and in 1969, the Alpine Journal published an obituary for Hazard, misspelling his name in the process, in which they made it clear he had never been a club member and that he had always been "something of a misfit". They also printed that he was best remembered for having left four Sherpa behind at the North Col in 1924, which necessitated a "very risky rescue" by other members of the party. The report also maintained that he had gone off the main route to the Tsangpo River "on a jaunt of his own" and concluded that while such detours had been acceptable previously, this had been the last straw which had led Lhasa to forbid future expeditions for nine years.

It took until 1996 for the Alpine Journal to publish an article by the Everest historian Audrey Salkeld titled "The Scapegoat". In this article Salkeld reviewed Hazard's life, his role in the Sherpas being left at the North Col as well as his unauthorised expedition to the Tsangpo River. She concluded that the Tibetan's main complaint was over the monks' visit and subsequent culturally insulting performances and that the diplomatic affair had been covered up because the chairman of the Mount Everest Committee, Francis Younghusband, must have been aware of, or even party to, the scheme to invite the monks.

Hazard had remained the scapegoat for over fifty years.

Coming in part four, we return to Everest to cover the expeditions of the 1930's, beginning in 1933, when the Tibetan ban on foreign climbers was finally relaxed.

Image: A publicity photo of the "lamas".