On the Buddha Purnima Day, May 12, 2025, Bihar governor, Arif Mohammad Khan visited the holy shrine, waxed eloquent about the greatness of Buddha but remained silent on the issue of the MahaBodhi Vihar being handed over to a Buddhist only management. Buddhist activists have also accused the governor of offering archana to Lord Shiva too, ignoring the sentiments of the Buddhists. Shockingly, while speaking “highly” of Buddha at an event, the governor did not even acknowledge that Buddhists have been protesting through a sit-in –for over two months —asking for a change in the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee.

Prior to Buddha Purnima day, there was a continuous dharana at the site and Buddhists particularly from Maharashtra were thronging the site. Bahujan Vikas Aghadi leader Prakash Ambedkar too visited and expressed his strong solidarity with the movement. BSP leader Ms Mayawati too expressed her solidarity with the movement though she has not yet travelled to Bodh Gaya. Except for these two leaders, no other leader of any recognised party has spoken about it. RJD which is the main opposition party in Bihar has been conspicuously silent on the question. PDA leader Akhilesh Yadav and his party have not bothered to address Buddhist concerns. Rahul Gandhi, the eloquent Leader of the Opposition (LoP in the Lok Sabha) who has made several visits to Bihar and even raised the issue of Dalit opporession has not uttered a word about the Mahabodhi Temple issue. Incidentally, there were prompt greetings to one and all on social media on Buddha Purnima day, but around the MahaBodhi Vihar there has been only silence.

None of the legacy media, newspapers or electronic media –with the exception of some Youtubers and Ambedkarite portals —have interrogated the festering issue. Instead,  reports have come in only from activist cadres and some leaders from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. There is a clash of political ideologies here too and that is natural. For millions of Dalits in India, the road to Buddhism goes via Baba Saheb Ambedkar while for a number of Buddhists in the Himalayan regions like Ladakh, Darjeeling, Himachal or Uttar Pradesh, Buddhism may not have the same political connotation as for the Ambedkarites who look upon it like a liberation theology. That contradiction seems to be emerging here too. Unfortunately therefore a blame game too has begun.

Read: Why the Bodh Gaya temple must be handed over to Buddhists

There was a call for a large gathering at Gaya on Buddha Purnima Day. However, it seems, that except for some dedicated Buddhists from Maharashtra and many from Uttar Pradesh, there was not a significant gathering here. To date, one Akash Lama has been leading the ‘non-political movement’ but suddenly he announced the suspension of the Dharana on Buddha Purnima day resulting in public accusations of his conniving with RSS and the NDA government. It is at this point of time another mendicant, Bhante Vinaya Acharya who seems to have questioned this suspension of Dharna as well as the inactive movement and wanted to launch a bigger movement to liberate the holiest shrines of the Buddhists, has been missing suddenly from the night of May 12.  Unconfirmed reports suggest that he has been arrested by the police though there is no information about his whereabouts. It is also strange that Bhant’s arrest or disappearance has not found its way in the Bihar media. Not much is heard from the political class about him. So, nobody actually knows what is happening as there is not a single official line from among India’s Buddhists, either..

A video has gone viral in which a local vendor is heard responding with ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to calls of ‘Jai Bhim’. Thereafter an altercation follows over why a non-Buddhist or anti Buddhist person has been allowed to be in the location of MahaBodhi Vihar. The issue of Maha Bodhi Vihar has suffered from the absence of enough local Buddhists living in Bodh Gaya. Despite all the sloganeering by national and regional opposition parties –espousing the politics of Pichda Dalit Adivasi (PDA) or the Bahujans – a vast majority of the Bahujan masses actually suffer from their own caste hierarchies. The sole thing that  unites them is the discrimination unleashed by Brahmanical forces. However, they have been unsuccessful so far in launching a movement that could eliminate Brahmanism from among themselves. Many intellectuals claim that it is a conspiracy to speak on these internal contradictions. The irony is that while a majority of the people, communities and castes that live in and around the Mahabodhi Vihar belong to Dalit Bahujan communities, the issue of independent Buddhist management  has not yet galvanised enough local support in a manner that could politically threaten the state government.

Leaders like Chirag Paswan or Jeetan Ram Manjhi have remained absolutely silent on the question. It is clear that the issue has not yet captured the emotion and sentiments of the local Bahujan masses which itself is a failure of its reach. Bihar’s social justice politics actually revolves around a class of agrarian-involved OBCs who have not been delinked from Brahmanical traditions. The cultural affiliation of communities like Dusadh as well as Charmkars too is heavily turned towards the rituals and practices which are often linked to Brahmanism. Unlike the Mahars in Maharashtra and Jatavs and Chamars in Uttar Pradesh, Dalits as well as OBCs in Bihar are culturally inclined to Brahmanical practices and rituals.

Even at the start, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara issue was not one raised by locals. It was the Sri Lankan Bhikkhu Anagarika Dharmapala who internationalised it. The Buddhist movement in India spread afresh among the masses only after Babasaheb Ambedkar revived this with his mass conversion, however, unfortunateky after his ‘Mahaparinirvana’, the movement remained confined to Maharashtra alone and thereafter spread only partly to Western Uttar Pradesh. The movement got revitalised after the ascendancy of BSP in power in the state when Ms Mayawati became chief minister of the state. She promoted Buddhism, created separate districts like Kushinagar, Mahamayanagar and  Panchsheel Nagar etc apart implementing some key policy measures.

However, the issue of Mahabodhi Mahavihara has always haunted the Buddhist community world over — why has their holiest shrine not been handed over to them for independent management. There is no dispute over the authenticity and historicity of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara but it is disturbing to see the deafening silence of all the major political players. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his foreign tours, speaks about Buddha and Buddhism as India’s cultural heritage but so far he has remained mute on the issue. Bihar government too has not spoken anything of it. The Ambedkarites are also pinning their hopes on the Chief Justice of India Justice B R Gavai but the fact is that the most important influencer in this regard can only be Prime Minister Narendra Modi apart from other Hindu organisations who should peacefully resolve this issue by handing over the Management of the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee to the Buddhists. While Hindu organisations have been seeking a positive response from Muslims in relation to all the religious places that they feel were originally ‘Hindu’ but were ‘demolished’ or appropriated as Mosques. The argument for Ayodhya Ram Temple movement was the same that Muslims should respect the sentiments of Hindus and hand over the temple to Hindus. The Supreme Court order in this regard was more to ‘honour’ the sentiments of Hindus rather than a judgement based on facts and constitutionality. The court used its own power in the good faith so that a political issue which should have been resolved long back, is now settled amicably. It is surprising why the same court cannot ask Hindus to respect the sentiments of Buddhists and ask the government to make due changes in the BodhGaya Temple Management Committee and hand it over to Buddhists. There is no dispute on its historicity and Buddhist background yet neither the court nor the political leaders have spoken about it.

For all political parties, any issue relates to the wider support and the linked political profit or loss in raising it. This is the only reason (motive) for a party with not much stake in Bihar –like the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi –is vocal while those in Bihar are silent only because of the absence of a popular local movement in its supports. Neither Lalu Yadav nor Chirag Paswan have spoken . Rahul Gandhi who has been vocal on the issues of Dalits as well as EBCs, has remained mute. He recently travelled to Darbhanga, addressed the SC students at the Ambedkar Hostel and later saw the film Phule with various activists, academics, students and politicians at a mall in Patna but did not utter a single word about the Buddhists demanding justice at Bodh Gaya.

This clearly indicates that for the political class, an issue only becomes important when it has the mass support. It seems locally there is no support for the movement in and around Bodh Gaya and a majority of the support that the issue has galvanised, is from outside. The Buddhist movement initiated by Baba Saheb Ambedkar has not reached diverse Dalit communities in India. Politically, all Bahujan parties do pay tribute to Lord Buddha and speak about Buddhism’s importance, but on the ground, their politics does not reflect the same commitment. Thirdly, even among the Dalits, it is mostly the Mahars and Jatavs who have embraced Buddhism and rest of the communities and leaders have not shown much inclination to it. For the OBCs, it does not concern much at the moment though exceptions are there but they are too small to impact the majority. Finally, there are also the cultural differences between the Buddhists from other regions and the Ambedkarite approach to it who have been aggressively speaking against the ‘Brahmanical’ onslaught on it. The non Ambedkarite Buddhists approach is through matured political dialogue with the government as it does not necessarily consider Hindus as adversary but for Ambedkarites Buddhists, aggressive critique of Brahmanism is the main theme of Buddhism. There are other issues of leadership of the movement too. People are missing Bhadant Nagarjun Surai Sasai who had once, , decades ago. Today, age has limited his political activism though he remains active in Maharashtra.

Two approaches can resolve the issue. One is if the Supreme Court takes note of it and gives direction to the Bihar government. Second, by Narendra Modi himself, who has been persistently using Buddhism as a symbol of India’s soft power, the world over. He participates in most Buddhist festivals and speaks greatly about Buddhism globally whenever he meets world leaders. Buddha is India’s biggest global influencer and one is sure that the government understands it. The government can call an all-party meeting and resolve the issue. This is not an issue which cannot  be resolved. Unlike Ayodhya, the issue is not really that of the origin and historicity of the temple but about its management which rightfully belongs to Buddhists.

Whether there are political movements or not, the government of India must take notice of this issue and provide a helping hand to the Bihar government, towards a resolution.

Buddha and Buddhism are India’s most powerful symbols of soft power. If the government has positive intent, it can resolve this issue peacefully and democratically. Will this, however, actually happen?

Related:

Bodh Gaya: Why the Mahabodhi Temple must be handed over to Buddhists

Religious Desecration: Who’s responsible for destruction of early Indian, Buddhist places of learning in Odisha?

The post Mahabodhi Vihar, Gaya: a conspiracy of silence across the political spectrum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is also a fact that in later years as the Buddhist patrons lost their power to the Sena dynasty of Bengal followed by Mughal rule and invasion, the shrine remained ignored, even assaulted and ultimately got ruined. One of the greatest services to Buddhism in India was actually rendered by great British Surveyor Major General A Cunnigham as well as Indian archaeologist Dr Rajendralal Mitra and many others in the early 19^th century. It was they who were actually responsible for the restoration of the current site and numerous other Buddhist places previously just buried under the rubbles of the ruins.

Nobody has ever doubted that Bodh Gaya is the largest, most significant shrine of the Buddhist world. Several scholars in the past termed have regarded it a fit spot for pilgrimage, as pivotal as Mecca for Muslims, Badri-Kedar for Hindus and Jerusalem for Christians. Almost all the documents and research since the beginning has undoubtedly suggested that this is a Buddhist temple. The Bodhi tree is among the oldest trees of the world right at the sire, despite the fact that it was destroyed and uprooted several times; however it survived.

I am not going far into arguments of authenticity because unlike other religious ‘disputes’ in India, the issue of Mahabodhi Vihar as Buddhist temple has been a settled one. Right from British scholars to the British Indian administrator have treated it as a Buddhist place. The British handled this issue with great care and the negotiations and even at that point there was no questioning the ‘ownership’ of the land as claimed by Shankar Matth today. The Matth’s role was appreciated because it did not convert the shrine into a Hindu temple and also that Buddhists were allowed to worship there. So both the Hindus and Buddhists have been worshipping there in the vicinity of the complex where the Math has built Hindu temple too. Here is what the Bengal District Gazetteer of Gaya, 1906 says about Bodh Gaya and Mahabodhi Vihar.

‘The temple was originally a Buddhist shrine but for a long time past, it has been in the possession of a Hindu Mahanth belonging to an order founded by the bitterest enemies of Buddhism. It has fallen into complete ruin and would have soon disappeared had not government restored it at its own cost, in consequence, they maintain a custodian for the care of the building and to see to its repair. The Mahanth controls the worship and receives the offerings made by the Buddhists and the Hindu pilgrims. Government maintaining an attitude of impartiality on all religious questions affecting the shrine. The Buddhists performs the rites of their religion at the shrine and under the Bodhi tree, just as Buddhists of different countries have done for centuries past and Hindus also make offering under the tree as it is recognized as one of the 45 of places which Hindu visit while performing the religious ceremonies for the salvation of their ancestors which centres around the holy city of Gaya. This Hindu reverence for tree is very old but by the side there is a Hindu cult of a very recent growth, as Hindu worship, which has been pronounced a spurious and unorthodox character, is offered at the shrine itself’[1].

About the historic Bodhi tree, it says,

‘this tree is the oldest historical tree in the world and has an eventful history. It was first cut down by Asoka in his unregenerate days but after he became a believer in the law of Buddha, he lavished an inordinate devotion upon it. His queen jealous of this attachment and grudging the jewel which Asoka offered to the tree, again had it cut down but for second time, it was miraculously, restored to life’[2].

Interestingly, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore visited Bodh Gaya in January 1922 and was overwhelmed to see this Buddhist shrine. He is recorded to have said,

“I am sure it will be admitted by all Hindus who are true to their own ideals, that it is an intolerable wrong to allow the temple raised on the spot where Lord Buddha attained his enlightenment to remain under the control of a rival sect which can neither have the intimate knowledge of or sympathy for the Buddhist religion and its rites of worship. I consider it to be a sacred duty for all individuals believing in freedom and justice this great historical site to the community of people who still reverently carry on that particular current of history in their own living faith’[3].

While the British Indian government was trying to handle this issue carefully, it was the heroic effort of Anagarika Dharmapala, the Buddhist monk and scholar from Sri Lanka who campaigned for its restoration and internationalised it. Though Chinse travellers and scholars like Hwen Thsang, Faxian had already narrated accounts of the Bodh Gaya shrine centuries ago as well as Burmese Kings, who were already involved in its restoration, it was Anagarika Dharmapala who actually took the issue to United States as well as Japan. British scholars, excavators and archaeologists were already doing their work to maintain and restore various Buddhist sites in India. While Japan was a leading world power at the rime and its involvement really helped as the British authorities to take the issue more seriously. In a typical balancing act symbolic of colonial rule however, the British did not want to ‘hurt’ local sentiments as there was no doubt about the historicity of the site but no local population who could fight for it! Had Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar been active or involved on the issue at this point of time then things would have been different. Unfortunately, without active local support, a community cannot battle a mighty cause such as this.

The appropriation or occupation of the Buddhist shrines by the Brahmanical elite in India historically happened with the steady decline of Buddhism due to a loss of power of Pala dynasty in the  12^th century as well as rise of Sena dynasty particularly King Sasank, who was a staunch opponent of Buddhism. Subsequently, many stories also make mention of various Mughal rulers and their local chieftains responsible for destruction of these historical places. Both the Indian National Congress and Hindu Mahasabha formed a committee with Babu Rajendra Prasad as its Convenor and passed a resolution on January 21, 1923 that read, “Babu Rajendra Prasad is authorised to investigate the proposal of placing the custody of Bodh Gaya temple in the Buddhist hands and to make report to this committee. Babu Rajendra Prasad is also empowered to coopt suitable persons in the investigations.”[4]

The Hindu Mahasabha of Bihar province too passed the following resolution dated April 6, 1925

‘Lord Buddha is one of the ten avatars of Hindus and the only deity whom the Buddhists worship.  The temple of Bodh Gaya is therefore a sacred place (teerth) for the followers of both the religions. And it is perfectly natural desire therefore, on the part of both the communities to keep this sacred place in their possession. Then at the present day both the communities’ resort to the place for worship and prayer.  People from both the communities’ desire that each one of them should be freely allowed to offer worship and prayer in its own peculiar way, according to its customs and   religious injunctions and that there should not be offered any obstacle in its way of doing so. This conference therefore is of the opinion that the Buddhists of India should be offered due share in the management of the temple and the arrangement of the offering of the worship therein. This conference appoints the following committee to make a report to the Provincial Hindu Sabha within three months as to the steps that should be taken to protect the common rights of both the Hindus and the Buddhists. It also requests the Mahanth of Bodh Gaya to render all possible help to the committee and a due and proper discharge of its duties. This resolution will have nothing to do with the properties attached to the Math of Both Gaya’. [5]

Unfortunately, despite all the noises made by the committee under Babu Rajendra Prasad, finally it concluded that the management of the shrine should be handled by a joint committee of both the Buddhists and Hindus together. There was another issue, which was important, the Hindu Mahasabha had suggested to keep the issue of the ‘ownership’ of the property outside the purview of the management!

The committee recommended based on the suggestion of Hindu Mahasabha ‘that the shrine be managed by both the Hindus and Buddhists and that the Mahant be the ex-officeo member for the ‘time being’. It also made it clear the issue of the property of Math has nothing to do with all this which means the property will remain with the Mahant. Though the Mahant claims to have a farman from Shah Alam but he could not produce anything to the committee. Mahadev Gir was Mahant from 1642 to 1682 and the time period of Shah Alam much later.

After independence the Bihar government brought the Bodh Gaya under the control of special management after passing a law Bodh Gaya Temple Management Act 1949. Under this act, the management of Bodh Gaya temple is defacto in the hands of Brahmins who happened to be a majority. There are four members to be appointed from ‘Hindu’ community and four from the Buddhist Community. The District Magistrate is the ex officio Chairman of the committee. Activist alleged that in most of the ‘temple management committees’, in India, the Brahmins get appointed overwhelmingly everywhere and Bodh Gaya is no exception to it.

UNESCO declared Mahabodhi Vihar as World Heritage site on June 29, 2002. The UNESCO citation says,

Criterion (i): The grand 50m high Mahabodhi Temple of the 5th-6th centuries is of immense importance, being one of the earliest temple constructions existing in the Indian sub-continent. It is one of the few representations of the architectural genius of the Indian people in constructing fully developed brick temples in that era. Criterion (ii) The Mahabodhi Temple, one of the few surviving examples of early brick structures in India, has had significant influence in the development of architecture over the centuries.

Criterion (iii): The site of the Mahabodhi Temple provides exceptional records for the events associated with the life of Buddha and subsequent worship, particularly since Emperor Asoka built the first temple, the balustrades, and the memorial column. Criterion (iv) The present Temple is one of the earliest and most imposing structures built entirely in brick from the late Gupta period. The sculpted stone balustrades are an outstanding early example of sculptural reliefs in stone.

Criterion (vi): The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bodh Gaya has direct association with the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained the supreme and perfect insight.

Now the question before us today is, that when all persons and parties who matter have no doubt about the historicity of Bodh Gaya Maha Vihar, what then is the obstacle in handing over to the Buddhists what is rightfully theirs?

As far as the Hindu Temple or the Matth is concern nobody beyond Bihar knows much about this so called Hindu Mandir at the site. Hindus have important pilgrim centres and temples. Gaya, which is 10 kilometres away from Bodh Gaya is considered to be an important place of Hindu worship and none question that. It was clear since the beginning that the Mahant claimed to have gained a Zagir or Zamindari from the Mughal kings and it was his source of income apart from two other temples.

Historically we also know well, how the Brahmanical lobby scuttled all efforts towards Zamindari Abolition, an issue so dear to then Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. Zamindari Abolition act came in 1951 and it was mostly challenged in Bihar where Brahmins, Bhumihars, Kayasthas and Rajputs had large Zamindaris (tracts of land). People are misinformed when they believe that it was only Rajputs who owned Zamindaris: in Bihar and Bengal Zamindari was not the sole domain of Rajputs but Brahmin-Bhumihar-Kayasthas too had large Zamindaris in both states.

It was estimated that the Bodh Gaya Matth had over 18000 acres of land (many estimated it over 30,000 acres) and it was the main source of the Mahant’s ‘power’ which he wielded on the poor landless people, a majority of them Dalits particularly Mushahars, Doms, Bhuiyna and other backward communities. Jaya Prakash Narayan addressed a historic gathering of landless peasants and other political activists here on April 18, 1975. The Bodh Gaya land movement continued until 1987 when the Bihar government distributed 18000-acre land among 11000 landless farmers, a majority of them landless women and Dalits. Gaya, Bhojpur, Ara, Jahanabad remained the hotbed for the movement for land rights of the landless communities, mostly mobilised by the far left groups. One needs to understand why the religious-political nexus has always opposed land reforms and found different ways to circumvent land ceiling laws by forming various religious trusts.

At the beginning of 19^th and 20^th century, we did not have enough support for the cause of Buddhism except for that which came from the outside. Japan, China, Thailand, Burma and other countries were interested in Buddhism in the land of its birth and its shrines. All shades of political leaders have felt proud of India’s historical Buddhist past. Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru believed in Panchsheel. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been speaking about Lord Buddha with great reverence and even participates in Buddhist festivals and events. His government claims a ‘look east policy’ and most of our eastern neighbours are Buddhist countries that have great respect for India as it is truly the land of Buddha.  There will not be a political party which will oppose handing over the greatest shrines of Buddhist world over to the Buddhist community to manage and maintain it.

Before, I conclude, I wish to add this thought-provoking letter of Swami Sachchidananda Saraswati on February 1, 1926 as appeared in the Mahabodhi journal. One may agree or disagree with many of the observations but what is important to understand is his ultimate aim.

‘It is a great shame for all Hindus that they should allow an individual Saivite Mahant to control the greatest Buddhist shrine. Is it just and right? It is great surprise that some Hindus do not raise objection against the forcible occupation by an individual sectarian non-Buddhist Mahant of a temple erected in the memory of Lord Buddha, the only teacher of and revered by the whole Buddhists world of 500 million Buddhists. No Hindu can control any Christian or Muslim shrine by such an undesirable mean. This is a great injustice to Buddha, Buddhism and one third of the World Population which follows Buddha and Buddhism. So long as the Hindus, not to say of an individual non-Buddhist Mahant will keep control of the greatest Buddhist temple, the whole Buddhist world will look down upon Hindus and say that there is a great injustice in India. Therefore, I pray each member of the Indian National Congress and Hindu Mahasabha should take keen interest in the matter and do justice to Buddha and Buddhists. When the Indian National Congress demand complete swaraj from the British government which is due to the Indians Why should not the Congress too do justice by giving the transfer of the Buddhist temple to the Buddhists. We find in our Hindu scriptures that India was a great fount of justice and truth but at present I see with regret the groundless obstacles placed in the sincere and just attempt over the complete management of this greatest Buddhist shrine to its legitimate custodians. If anyone want justice from the others the former should first deal justice with others. In the Khilafat movement days, the Hindus helped Khilafatis, in the Akali movement days they helped the Akalis, why shouldn’t the Hindus help Buddhists to regain their holiest shrine?

The question is one of pure justice. If the Hindu Mahasabha will fail to do justice with the Buddhists. There is no doubt that the Buddhists will be morally affected and be far and far away from it. If it be the aim of All India Hindu Mahasabha, that all the people of different religion should give equal treatment to one another and live amicably with one another then it should give justice and equal treatment to Buddhism and Buddhists also and allow the latter to have the full management of their holiest shrine.

Therefore, let us, the Hindus, with our usual sincere and justice loving heart assure Buddhists of our unanimous opinion that we will give complete transfer of Buddhist temple to them. Let us be also assured that they will allow the Hindus to worship Buddha freely as they should do to Buddha and that neither the Buddhists nor the Hindus should offer fish or meat before the Buddhist statues. I further appeal to all the sincere Hindus that they should criticize the report and support impartially the Buddhists claim for the complete management of the Buddhist temple which is justly due to the Buddhists.

Swami Sachchidananda Saraswati,

Calcutta, February 1, 1926’[6]

A few years ago, when I met venerable Bhante Nagarjun Surai Sasai, a Japanese by birth but an Indian in action now and asked him about Bodh Gaya, he told me that it is the birth place of Lord Buddha. I was surprised and shocked when he said that. He explained this to me: Lumbini is the birth place of prince Siddhartha but it is Gaya that gave birth to Buddha hence Bodh Gaya Mahabodhi Vihar is the most sacred shrine for the Buddhists all over the world. Every Indian should be proud of this rich cultural heritage which the world acknowledges.

It is time for the government of Bihar to take a simple decision. The state government can call an all- party meeting and listen to their views. You can tell them the history of this movement and the archaeological findings. For too long has the far right Hindutva leadership asked Muslims to ‘respect’ Hindu sentiments? The Buddhist are asking the same from the Hindus. Will the Hindutva leadership, Congress as well as the Samajwadis learn a few lessons from their own past and correct them? All their top leadership has accepted and supported the Buddhist claim on the Maha Bodhi Vihar, Gaya. The Ambedkarite fraternity in India is already fighting for a peaceful solution through a democratic and law-abiding struggle. All the political parties and organizations that claim to represent Ambedkarite thoughts and people stand in complete solidarity with the Bodh Gaya Maha Bodhi Vihar movement. Will the Bihar government wake up and listen to the voices and reread its history to handover this shrine to the Buddhists.

Nitish Kumar hails from the JP movement and so does Lalu Prasad Yadav. Bihar’s landless people owe a lot to that historic Bodh Gaya Land movement which ultimately paved the way towards redistribution of the thousands of acres of land to landless people illegally occupied by the Matth. Buddhists have been wronged. Buddha and Buddhist past are India’s glorious heritage which makes us proud. Dalits and Ambedkarites were not before a strong force nor and Buddhism was in physical decline in India but Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s historic Deeksha ceremony on October 14, 1956 and subsequent efforts of the Ambedkarites actually revived Buddhism in India and today the number of Buddhists is increasing in both India and abroad.

Today, the Buddhists in India are ready to take this battle to its end. Buddha was a man of peace and non-violence hence the longer this struggle stretches the more bitter would become the relations between the Hindus and Buddhists. The government must ensure that such a bitterness is not allowed to spread widely and it will only be possible if the shrine’s management is handed over to Buddhists of India.

[1] Bengal District Gazetteers, Gaya by L S S O’Malley, ICS, Calcutta, The Bengal Secretariate Book Depot, 1906,  P 50-51

[2] ibid P-52

[3] https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/books/rabindranath-tagore-a-poem-that-defined-the-buddha-and-sujata-stupa/cid/1818901

[4]    Mahabodhi and the United Buddhist World Volume 34, January 1926 No 1, P 2,

[5] Ibid P 4

[6] Mahabodhi : March 1926 Volume XXXIV     Volume III, Mahabodhi and the United Buddhist World Volume 34 P 165-166

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Religious Desecration: Who’s responsible for destruction of early Indian, Buddhist places of learning in Odisha?

Land to the Dalit Tiller, not to Tycoons is our Mission: Jignesh Mevani

The post Bodh Gaya: Why the Mahabodhi Temple must be handed over to Buddhists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) on Thursday September 7 took out a protest rally in Leh town against the marriage and warned the government of a full-fledged agitation if the girl was not returned. The association has ‘given’ the government a week’s time.

The protesters also submitted a memorandum addressed to Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, alleging Muslims of luring Buddhist girls into their fold.

“Young girls are being lured by Muslim boys to marry and finally convert them,” the memorandum said. The association also made a direct threat in the memorandum, saying that the situation could turn ugly if the girl is not returned back to Leh.

“We feel that the Muslim community leaders, administration, and other stakeholders need to warn Muslim community and the state government machinery for immediate intervention and arrange to bring back the girl before peace tranquility and communal harmony takes an ugly turn.”
Later, the leaders of LBA while addressing the protesters issued an ultimatum to local Muslims, who are in minority, to vacate the town within seven days.

However, among all these allegations, it seems the LBA has missed a small but rather important detail. The girl in question, whose earlier name was Stanzin Saldon, had converted to Islam way back in April 2015. In an affidavit signed by Stanzin now Shifah in April 2016 in Bangalore, Karnataka reads, “I have embraced Islam, giving up my former Buddhist faith on 22nd April 2015.Therefore I hereby confirm adopt and reaffirm faith in  Islam.”

The allegations of LBA of marrying and converting a Buddhist girl fall flat as the girl in question converted to Islam way back in 2015. “She had converted two years ago and was looking for a Muslim guy who could marry her. The question of Muslims marrying Buddhist girl falls flat here. The girl was Muslim even before meeting the boy,” says Sajjad Hussain, a Kargil-based journalist.

According to locals in Drass, the girl and her husband have gone underground after the threats emerged. The girl has also written an open letter in response to LBA’s memorandum.

The girl accused LBA of issuing false statements and presenting a concocted version of the events.

“They  (LBA) state that I was lured into Islam by him and also warning Muslim community in Ladakh (in general) to return me. So this is to clarify to your honourable self and the concerned parties that this statement of LBA is false and concocted, an effort to suppress and threaten the rights of an individual, a woman to be more specific,  in the disguise of “luring”,” she wrote.

She further wrote, “LBA is trying to objectify me and demanding my return as if I’m a property, which I’m not and cannot allow anyone to perceive me as such. I’ve accepted Islam long way back, not because I dislike any other religion but considering my spiritual quest and an interest in religious philosophies, which was way before I met Murtaza. I repeat, my marriage has nothing to do with my spiritual choices, love and companionship being the only reason for our marital bond. The spiritual choice is a very personal matter not to be mixed with my marriage,” she added.
She requested people to maintain peace and harmony by not letting dividing forces to deepen the fear and hatred.

Local Muslim leaders have also alleged LBA of communalising the issue and stoking communal tension in a region that has otherwise been mostly peaceful.

“The open letter written by the girl has already cleared many things and threatening Muslims to vacate the district is very unfortunate. We spoke to Superintendent of Police Leh to ensure the safety of Muslims because the administration is responsible for the safety of Muslims in the district,” Ashraf Barcha, President, Anjuman Islamia-Leh, told TwoCircles.net.

Sheikh Abdullah Jalili of Islamia School Kargil said the threat of communal violence is hardly a solution to this issue. “LBA has previously also issued open threats to the Muslim community in the region. Everyone has freedom of religion. If a person wants to convert to Islam or Buddhism, it is solely his/her personal decision and we are no one to interfere in that. Recently, a Muslim girl converted to Buddhism in Kargil, but we didn’t make such noise because this was her personal decision.”

The deadline given by the LBA to state government and Muslims is Thursday, September 14.

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post In Leh, two Muslims got married but Buddhist Association calls it ‘Love Jihad’, tensions high appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Asked once whether he considered himself a Hindu, Gandhiji had replied: “Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.

“Respond to every call that excites your spirit.” wrote Sufi poet Rumi long before the Mahatma. And he also wrote this: “Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged”

Now the highly regarded actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui has something similar to say through a video he has posted.

Not through the spoken word but through placards Gurmehar Kaur style, he says he is part Hindu, part Muslim, part Sikh, part Christian, part Buddhist, part every other religion of the world. All in equal parts: 16.66% each. But, he adds, he is 100% an artist.

A powerful, poignant message. A message most likely to be lost on the self-proclaimed cow vigilantes and their political mentors.

Last Dussehra, Siddiqui was reportedly denied the chance to play Maarich in his village Ramleela simply because he is a Muslim.

Siddiqui’s upcoming films include Sridevi-starrer Mom, the dance drama Munna Michael and Nandita Das’s Manto.
 

The post I am 16.66% all religions, 100% an artist: Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was raining ferociously when we reached our hotel somewhere between Mcleodganj and Dharamkot on the evening of the fourth of July. We advised ourselves to stay indoors. You don’t step out on a rainy night in a terrain you don’t understand. My partner and I had settled for the TV show Durrels (based on the story of Lawrence Durrel’s family when they were in Greece) on our laptop that evening and decided to stay mostly indoors with some Momos and Thukpa (regular urban predictions). The large windows in our room and the precarious looking balcony opened to wild and dark clouds.  Behind them were the giant and magical mountains we were to explore next few days. This was meant to be a quiet holiday. The plan was to walk, trek, lounge in cafes and meditate in motion. My partner insisted I practice Wing-Chun with him. Mostly happily and sometimes not so happily, I trained with him.

Credit: Rukmini Sen

Suresh, however had some work to finish on the second day. After a large breakfast he settled in front of his laptop for the first few hours of the day. We were to meet after four hours in Mcleodganj.  The walk down the Dharamkot road is serene. Slightly slushy and slippery during the rains, but quiet nevertheless. I met old and young monks on my way down and up. Many of them were women. All the monks were in maroon robes. They looked at me, smiled and acknowledged me whenever I did the same. There were few other people on the hilly road. I clicked random photographs. Mostly of the colourful Buddhist flags.  I noticed a monk who helped a woman with a child and then he walked alone. He rested for a while alone.  Then he climbed up the road again.

Once in the mall road of Mcleodganj I decided to treat myself to some Kombucha (fermented and sweetened black or green tea good for digestion). I was very thirsty by now. So I entered this coffee shop which had many books. Once inside I skipped the books and headed towards their balcony full of bright red, pink and orange flowers. The balcony had stairs that, quite like a maze, took you to another part of the same coffee shop. This part was an open terrace. The owner of the coffee shop was friendly and political. We talked about Tibet and how Tibetans feel in Dharamshala. This conversation came back to me a few days later when a student of Buddhism became our guide at the Norbulinka monastery. He told us how most Indians were nice and curious. However, another Indian tourist was very unhappy with him because there were many dogs in the monastery. The tourist had told our young guide to go back to Tibet as according to him the Tibetans knew nothing about how a spiritual place should be kept. This student while narrating this story smilingly said “I told him we didn’t get these dogs from Tibet. This is their home”. He added that the rude tourist’s wife had smiled when he had said that.
 

Credit: Rukmini Sen

At Men-Tse-Khang which is the Tibetan Medical and Astro Institute, the Astro experts advise their clients to feed fish, dogs and animals along with poor people to resolve many life issues. For instance you may be advised to feed fish and dogs if you feel very lazy and tired.  Tibetan Buddhists clearly believe that inner harmony is possible if we also look outside and create harmony with fellow living beings not just human beings. The dogs thus are very happy in the monasteries. They are loved and fed well. None of them are, however, fat like some of the street dogs in Mumbai. May be they don’t eat plastic accidently like the animals in Mumbai.

I have wondered since that conversation with our young guide why the friendly dogs in Norbulinka had disturbed a tourist. We don’t know where the man came from and what values made him hate dogs so much! Or was it not the dogs? It was perhaps humans he didn’t understand. What makes people so sure of their own likes and dislikes? And then what is this stubborn faith that makes people hateful? What kind of values, faith and fears makes people dislike their guests?

I shudder at the thought of being a refugee, of living in exile. No community wants to migrate in such huge numbers till there is fear of life and wellbeing. Not the Buddhists of Tibet, not the Rohingya Muslims of Burma and Bangladesh, not the Bangladeshi Muslims, not the Hindus of Kashmir, not the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan, not the Jews of Germany.

Credit:Rukmini Sen

Buddhism, Harmony, living in exile and the free association with these words made me ruminate how the privileged travel, commute and immigrate easily and legally. The privileged can improve their state of being by legally crossing borders of state/province and nation states. However, the poor are viewed as illegal immigrants in case of national borders or an unwanted immigrant if s/he travels in his/her own country.

The poor have no right to cross borders and dream of a better life especially if s/he is not a political community another nation state can benefit from. Our young guide, a trained engineer is now studying Buddhist philosophy on his mother’s insistence. He was born in India and still belongs nowhere or so he felt when he was asked to go back to a land he knows very little about by an absolute stranger. In my many conversations in cafes, shops, meditation centres I heard people talk of their gratitude to India while they shared their pain when a few people treated them with anger and disdain.

There are different reasons given at different times to stop poor from migrating. Demography, shortage of resources, criminal leanings, religion of violence etc. We all tend to forget that our ancestors must have migrated many times, that most of our ancestors migrated from Africa! We are the same people!

I chanced upon a poetry book called SONGS OF THE ARROW by Bhuchung D. Sonam in one of the coffee shops.

He like many other Tibetans has dogs in his narrative. He is a rebel poet of sorts. Someone who denounces the middle path in his work of art. The pain of being in exile is evident.

Credit:Rukmini Sen
 
A poet’s heart must ask questions. One that needs special mention here goes somewhat like this-

A FAT DOG
My name is Migyur
I am a Fat Dog
Barking from a kennel
On a borrowed land
I am witless, shameless, gutless
But I am in charge of
This dog operation
 
Listen
My name is Migyur
I like to wag my tail
To eat all of the time
To work the least of the time
And think none of the time
I am stupid, inspid and a puppet
But I am a fat dog
And that is enough
 
My name is Migyur
I am a fat dog
Growling from my arm chair
To all other dogs
The homeless, stateless, boneless
Tails tucked between their legs
“Don’t think just bark” I order
They listen because
I am a big fat dog
 
My name is Migyur
I am a fat dog
I don’t care about
Ther fangs, bangs, gangs
But I don’t like their minds
Stirring up things
Creating chaos
Bringing change
They want a revolution
My foot! Should have said- my paw!
 
I am a fat dog
I am in charge
I give orders
Get used to me or get out!

Credit:Rukmini Sen

Sonam, the poet in exile also questions the middle path as expounded by Mahayana school of Buddhists. HH Dalai Lama also preaches the middle path of the Mahayana sect. Some in Hinayana sect consider middle path seekers as nihilists. Some in Mahayana consider their counter parts as absolutists.

Sonam writes –

Dog Dead
There is no such thing
As middle path
We al gravitate to our sides
If there is a path in the middle
I would be the first to find it
I am neither here nor there…
To her right
To your left
Far from their centre
There is a dog chewing a bone
In the middle of the path
A truck comes speeding
 
When W. H Auden said “Poetry is the clear expression of mixed feelings” maybe he meant the above. His Holiness Dalai Lama’s decision to not go to war, to leave Tibet with his people, to protect his people at all cost, to keep the peace, to wait with grave patience reminds me of a story of Sri Krishna that my brother and I loved as children. His Holiness Dalai Lama is criticised by some who stayed back in Tibet and some Tibetans who crave for armed battle against China.

Credit:Rukmini Sen

In the Mahabharata we learn that Jarasandha, the King of Madgadha, was livid when he heard that Krishna had killed Kamsa, his son-in-law. His daughters-Asti and Prapti had sent a message to him that they had now become widows.

Jarasandha decided to teach Krishna and the Yadavas a lesson. He attacked Mathura seventeen times. Before Krishna and Balarama could come up with a grand plan they heard Jarasandha had entered into an armed alliance with Damghosha of Chedi, Dantavakra of Karusa, Rukmi of Vidarbha and the brothers Vind and Anuvinda of Avanti. The alliance had only a single aim-destroy Mathura and the Yadava clan. The Kingdom of Hastinapur expressed helplessness in coming to the aid of the Yadavas.
 
Krishna was the only person who repeatedly cautioned his clansmen against the war. He then hit upon the idea of shifting the capital from Mathura to Dwarka. Krishna placed the suggestion before King Ugrasena his grandfather. Ugrasena and all other courtiers and even the commanders of the Yadava army were against flight. Balarama too, wanted to fight against Jarasandha.
 
Urgasena told Krishna that if he ran away from battle field, he would be known as a Ranchod or one who has run away from a battle field. Krishna retorted that he had no worry about any new name being given to him. “I already have many names and one more does not make any difference”, he said. “Moreover, I am willing to sacrifice my reputation for saving my people and their lives”, he said.
 
Interesting descriptions about Dwarka’s construction are found in Puranas. "Fearing attack from Jarasangh and Kaalayvan on Mathura, Shri Krishna and Yadavas left Mathura and arrived at the coast of Saurashtra. They decided to build their capital in the coastal region and invoke the Vishwakarma the deity of construction. However, Vishwakarma says that the task can be completed only if Samudradev, the Lord of the sea provided some land. Shri Krishna worshipped Samudradev, who was pleased and gave them land measuring 12 yojans and the Lord Vishwakarma build Dwarka, a "city in gold".
 
While Sri Krishna and his sermons in Gita are mentioned repeatedly whenever war/battles/fights are talked about we rarely talk about how after the Mahabharata War Krishna lived for 36 years at Dwarka. At the end, the Vrshnis, Bhojas and Satvatas destroyed themselves in a fratricidal feud at Prabhasa but Krishna did not interfere to save them.
 
Like Sri Krishna, Hazrat Mohammed is also remembered for battles and wars by his detractors and many of his followers. What we often forget is that Muhammad left Mecca, in 622 CE, after he was warned about a plot to assassinate him. The migration of the Prophet and his followers from Mecca to Medina is known as Hijra or Hegira. After leaving his home in Mecca, Muhammad hid for three days in the Cave of Thawr, located south of his home city. He then travelled north and arrived at Quba' near Medina on July 2, 622. He moved from Quba' to Medina, two weeks later.

According to the Islamic faith, the Prophet was commanded by Allah to leave Mecca for Medina. The plot to assassinate him was the result of his preaching of the revelations God bestowed upon him. He could not preach in public and he had several opponents and enemies in Mecca. Medina was the place where Muhammad started to attract more and more followers.

For the next ten years, the city remained Muhammad's base, from where they marched to Mecca and conquered it without battle. Mecca was won by a treaty not by a war. Today, Medina is considered the second holiest place in Islam and is often referred to as the "City of the Prophet," home of the "Prophet's Mosque". After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Medina remained an important centre and was considered the de facto capital of the Caliphate.

Sitting here in Norbulinka, drinking the Tibetan butter tea I can’t help but ruminate over HH Dalai Lama’s simple lines – “Nothing is permanent, not even exile”
 
On the evening of 5^th of July, when Suresh and I sat down for our late lunch we read “Untitled” –
Hope is
A counterpoint to
Disappointment,
I wear it like
A belt whose holes
Widen each day
 
This is followed by the heart breaking lines-
 
When the sun admonishes
I cram my head into
The refrigerator
To reaffirm
My allegiance to
The cold mountains.

We were told by one of the men at the coffee shop that all Tibetans shops would be close on the 6^th of July. It was HH Dalai Lama’s 81^st Birthday. We decided to visit his temple that day and watch the students of Tibet School of Arts perform. After all, we live in interesting times. We want numerous answers about resistance, war and peace.

About time we groped for at least the right questions!

(The author, Rukmini Sen, has been an electronic media journalist for twenty years. She launched and produced shows like Special Correspondent and Seedhi Baat. For last three years she has been developing film projects for various film studios. She also edits Hillele. Org)

Credit:Rukmini Sen
 

The post Butter Chai Ruminations at Norbulinka appeared first on SabrangIndia.