China's Concern About Its Kyrgyz Neighbors
The Kyrgyz did not represent a direct threat to China due to their remoteness. Knowing the wealth and strength of this northern people, they tried various ways to "be friends" with the Kyrgyz, so that the latter would be a force threatening Central Asian states (Eastern Turks and Uyghurs), whose military raids had repeatedly devastated China. They attempted to set the Kyrgyz against, for example, the Eastern Turks and Uyghurs, creating what could be termed a "balance of power" in the Central Asian arena. To some extent, they managed to do this, and the Chinese emperor Wu-Ziun did not hesitate to engage with Kyrgyz envoys and the Kyrgyz leader.
Other opinions were held by the advisors of the emperor and the predecessor of Wu-Ziun, the Chinese emperor Xuan-Zun.
Considering the military successes of the Kyrgyz and the fact that they, having defeated the Uyghurs, reached the Central Asian arena, i.e., became direct neighbors of China, the Chinese court sharply changed its position.
On this matter, a Chinese source directly states: "Wu-Ziun passed away in 846. Xuan-Zun, taking the throne, wanted to implement the plans of his predecessor, but some of the nobles presented to him that the Khakas (Kyrgyz) are a small tribe, which cannot be compared with the house of Tan (China), which is why this matter was presented for consideration by ministers of communication and other officials, from the fourth class and above. The general opinion of the officials was that the Uyghurs were given privileges during their power: fortunately, they have now fallen, and to eliminate future unrest, there is no need to strengthen the Khakas (Kyrgyz). Thus, this matter was halted" (I. Bichurin. Op. cit., pp. 451-452). Thus, all privileges and honors that were granted to the Kyrgyz during the military successes of the Chinese emperor Wu-Ziun were completely revoked when the Chinese court felt the full strength of the revived people, a force that troubled China. A sharp change in tactics was implemented even during the lifetime of that Kyrgyz leader who led the Kyrgyz people on the path of struggle for independence.
From this, it follows that in the indicated second period from 820, during the revival of Kyrgyz statehood, the struggle was carried out by the forces of the Kyrgyz people themselves under the leadership of a leader who was not part of the political bloc with the reactionary states of the Far East and Central Asia.
Until his death (in 847), this leader carried out the idea of liberating the Kyrgyz people solely with the forces of his own people, restoring its former power. This is the main, fundamental essence of the period under consideration, which also determines our attitude towards the leader who emerged in the indicated period as a bearer of the liberating and "unifying" idea.
This same idea constitutes the main theme of the era of "Manas," which has already been discussed in the literature repeatedly.
The Period of "Kyrgyz Great Power"