Its real story from 250 BCE to 2018
Buddha Gaya (Bodhgaya) is an important and holy place for all the Buddhists of the world. It is at this place that Prince Siddartha attained enlightenment and proclaimed the Four Noble Truths through the Eight Fold path leading to Nibbana.
Buddha Gaya was earlier known as Uruvela during the Buddha’s times. Uruvela was situated on the sandy banks of Neranjana river, now known as Falgu river. In around circa 250 BCE, Emperor Ashoka visited this place during his 11th year of reign and donated 1,00,000 gold coins for building a vihara. He also built a 10 feet high wall for protecting the Bodhi tree (pipal) under which the Buddha meditated.
During Ashoka’s time, this place was known as Sambodhi or Mahabodhi. The name Buddha Gaya came into use in the 18th century. Ashoka built a polished Vajrasana (a seat where the Buddha sat for meditation and attained enlightenment). Ashoka also recreated the cloistered walk of the Buddha with 22 pillared base each with a mark of “a” to “t” in Ashokan Dhammalipi script. The donations and the work carried out by Ashoka can be seen on the 8th major rock edict, toranas of Sanchi Stupa 1 and on the Stupa railing at Bharhut.
In 1863, Sir Alexander Cunningham asked Major Meade to carry out excavation at Buddha Gaya. Later on in 1880, Sir Ashley Eden, the Lt. Governor of Bengal appointed Mr. J. D. Beglar to carry out thorough repairs of the whole vihara. During excavation, a number of antiquities were found which signify the various repairs carried out in the Mahabodhi Mahavira. The earliest known foreign visitor as per inscription of Bodhirakshita is a Sinhalese monk named Culla Tissa, who visited the Mahavihara in 100 BCE.At the Vajrasana, gold coins and some silver punched coins of the Indo Scythian King Huvishka (King Kanishka’s son) belonging to 140 CE were found. The inscription on the outer side of Vajrasan confirms it. This shows that the present structure was added by King Huvishka. The Vajrasana as well as the Buddha image bears Indo-Scythian inscription.
Fai Hian twice visited the Mahabodhi Mahavira between 399 – 409 CE and has given a detailed description of the Vihara. He was the first Chinese monk to reach the land of the Buddha. In the first half of 4th century CE, Srilankan King Meghavan’s brother visited Buddhagaya and finding no proper place to stay asked the King to built one. On getting permission from local ruler, King Maghavana built a huge Mahabodhi Monastery on the North side of the Vihara. On its door was placed a copper plaque stating, “To help all without distinction is the highest teaching of all the Buddhas”. This monastery went on to become one of the finest monastic universities nearly at par with Nalanda or Vikramshila. Hsuen Tsang has described this monastery has having six large viharas, three storied watch towers surrounded by a wall of 30-40 feet tall. Inside was an image of the Buddha in gold and silver with precious stones. The stupas built were high and contained relics of the Buddha. He records nearly 1000 monks residing there. The great Acharya Buddhagosha wrote the famous commentary Attasalini and Dnanoday (now lost) at this monastery before leaving for Srilanka. Some renowned monks associated with this monastery were Chin-hung, Hsuan-chao, Dharmapala (author of Madhyamakacatuhsatika) and Ratnavajra. In the 19th century, Cunningham, after excavation mentioned that the Mahabodhi monastery was 2000 ft in length and 1000 ft in width. The walls were 9 ft thick with massive round towers on all the four sides. This monastery existed till the end of 13th century CE.
King Silakala of Srilanka, who reigned from 518 – 531 CE, spent his youth as a novice in one of the monasteries here. Around 600 CE, King Shashanka ordered the Bodhi tree to be cut down since he was the great opponent of Buddhism. He also ordered the statue of the Buddha, placed inside the Vihara to be broken down. However the Bodhi tree as well as the statue of the Buddha was saved strategically by a loyal person of King Purnavarman, of adjoining kingdom. In 620 CE, King Purnavarman built a 24 feet high wall around the Bodhi tree. He also protected the Vajrasana.
Around 637 CE, Hsuen Tsang visited the Mahavihara. He mentions addition of the pavilion which was the donated by the Burmese King Sado. It was during this time that the great floods of river Neranjana (Falgu) caused an influx of sand in so large a quantity as to fill up the Vihara complex up to a height of 2 and ½ feet. Even the Vajrasana was covered with it and Huen Tsang mentions that it was difficult to locate the Vajrasana. Hsuan tsang details the Mahabodhi Mahavihara as 170 ft high made of bricks coated with plaster. There were niches in the temple, each containing a gilded statue and plaster work ornamentation. On the east side of the main temple was a 3 stories pavilion with gold and silver inlay decorated with pearls and prccious stones. On the either side of main entrance were 10 ft high statues of Avalokiteshvara and Maitreya made of silver. The Bodhi tree was surrounded by a 20 ft high wall built by King Punarvarman.
Apart from shrines marking the Buddha’s 7 weeks at Buddhagaya, Ashoka had built numerous stupas and pillars marking Sujata’s house, conversion of Kassapa brothers and of Matiposaka jataka. These stupas existed till 18th century, when later on villagers found these stupas to be good source of bricks and eventually were destroyed. In one of the stupas, a wooden box was found containing various images made of lak. The Mahabodhi Mahavihar required continuous repairs and renovations were made by unknown people who made inscriptions on the railings surrounding the main vihara. From the inscriptions, it can be seen that some unknown patron had donated 250 dinaras (gold coin of Gupta period) for repairs and 300 cows so that the ghee lamps can be lighted in the Mahabodhi Mahavihara till the ‘sun and moon exists’.
In the 7th century, I Tsing visited Buddhagaya. He mentions that villages and their produce from fields were donated for the monks. In the 10th cent CE, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara kept on receiving Buddhist monks from Srilanka, China and Tibet. In 964 CE, more than 300 Chinese monks travelled from
China to visit the Mahabodhi Mahavihar. The Chinese Emperor Tai Tsung (976-997 CE) donated a stupa to be erected under the Bodhi tree.
On the top of the stairs that leads to the north side of terrace of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara is a huge statue flanked by Avalokiteshvara and Maitreya. The three inscriptions mention donation by monk Viryendra who hailed from the present Bengal. This was donated probably in the early 10th century CE. Between 1035 to 1079 CE, the Burmese King made extensive repairs of the Buddhagaya Mahabodhi Mahavihara. The earliest Chinese inscription is seen on a carved stone showing the seven Buddhas belonging to the 10th century CE. This stone is at present displayed in the Indian Museum. In 1011 CE, Dipankara Srijana, known as Atisa, one of the greatest Buddhist masters was ordained as a monk at Buddhagaya. He studied Vinaya for two years under Silaraksita of the Matavihara before leaving for Sumatra Island where he stayed there for 12 years and returned back to Buddhagaya.
In the 11th century CE, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara required further repairs. King Kyanzittha of Pagan, Burma (1084-1113 CE) sent shiploads of jewels, gold and other precious stones for the repairs. An inscription dated 11th century CE records it. Around 1230 CE, King Asokavalla of Sivalik hills, built a monastery on the advice of his teachers – Pandit Mushala and Chattopadi. Another monastery was built by Purushottamasingha, the king of Kama in memory of his daughter’s deceased son. The construction of this monastery was supervised by monk Dharmarakshita. The inscriptions found by Sir Cunningham states so.
It is widely believed that the Buddhagaya’s Mahabodhi Mahavihara and adjoining monasteries were destroyed by the Muslim invasion around 1199. There is no evidence to support this. On the contrary, when Dharmasvamin, a Tibetan monk arrived at Buddhagaya in 1234 CE, he found 300 Srilankan monks at the Mahabodhi Monastery. There is no doubt that Buddhagaya endured two attacks by the Muslims; however the monks continued their study. Another inscription dated 1262 CE, confirms donation for repairs by the Srilankan King Jayasena and also donated some land to monk
Mangalswamin. In 1298, King Dharmasena of Burma arranged for the repairs of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. In 1471, King Dhammacetiya of Burma sent monks and masons along with artists to repair the temple and make offerings under the Bodhi tree.
The last Indian Buddhist monk to visit Buddhagaya was Buddhagupta in the 16th century CE. Around same time, Srilankan monk Dharmadivakara visited Buddhagaya. Buddhists from various countries wanted to visit Buddhagaya; however due to the inability as well as with the advent of Muslim rule they could not do so. This resulted in building of replicas of Mahabodhi Mahavihara in various Buddhist countries by the respective Kings. King Kyanzittha specially sent a contingent to copy plans of Mahabodhi Mahavihara and build a vihara in Pagan. In 1452, a stupa in the form of Mahabodhi Mahavihara was built in Tibet to enshrine the remains of a famous Lama. In 1472, King Dhammacetiya of Pegu sent a contingent of craftsman to
Buddhagaya to make plans of it. A magnificent vihara called Shewgugyi was built in Pegu. Around 1448, King Tilokaraja of Thailand built Mahabodharama, Wat Jet Yot based on the drawings of Mahabodhi Mahavihara. He even recreated the surroundings as seen around the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. He even planted a sapling of the Bodhi tree grown from the Bodhi tree at Anuradhapur, Srilanka. Another vihara was built in Thailand in around 16th – 18th century CE in Chiang Rai region.
In the 16th century CE, a Nepalese layman visited Buddhagaya and made plans of it. On his return to Nepal, he built a Mahabuddha Vihara in Patan which was heavily damaged in the 1934 earthquake but was rebuilt once again.
In 1748, the Chinese built a first vihara Wu Ta Szu in outside of Peking. By this time, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara had very few monks left and the pilgrimage from various countries came to halt. This was due to the unstable, war like conditions that prevailed in the country.
In the early part of 17th century CE, a wandering Saivite ascetic named Gosavi Ghamandi Giri settled down near the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. His disciples started increasing in numbers and the Mahant (as he started calling himself) started taking control of the nearby Buddhist monasteries around the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. He built his ashram near the Mahabodhi Mahavira and brought some images of the Buddha from the Mahabodhi Mahavira complex to his ashram and started conducting pujas.
The deification process of the Mahabodhi Mahavira images had started!
Slowly the Mahant and his successors became powerful and wealthy and began to look at the Mahabodhi Mahavihara as his personal property. The Mahabodhi Mahavihara condition became from bad to worse. In absence of any maintenance, the structure started crumbling and the Mahant and his
followers started worshipping these images as Hindu gods. During 1790, British artists, surveyors, travelers and amateur archaeologists traveled to Buddhagaya. Amongst them were the famous artists William and Thomas Daniell who made some good sketches of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara.
In 1811, the British government invited Francis Buchanan for doing a survey of Bihar and Buddhagaya. He has detailed everything as seen; but his description is far away from the magnificent structure described by Hsuan Tsang in 637 CE. The Mahabodhi Mahavihara was robbed of all its intricately carved images, stones, arches and gold and silver engraved wooden interiors. What Buchanan saw was a crumbling ruin that was pulled down by the Mahant and local people for building their own building. He mentions that various shrines (small viharas) erected around the Mahavihara were demolished to provide bricks for the Mahant’s ashram. The carved pillars had been removed and used to build the ‘panch pandu temple’ by the Mahant. Even the stone depicting the Buddha’s footprints was moved to the Mahant’s temple and worshipped as ‘Vishnupada’. James Chichely, James Crockett, both army officers and Sir Charles D’Oyly left pictorial records of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara.
In 1847, the first archaeological investigation took place under Captain Markham Kittoe and he unearthed parts of the famous Ashoka railing in the ruins. Many images were found; some were kept near the Mahabodhi Mahavira and many carried to the various museums across the country. In 1861,
another excavation was done by Major Mead under the direction of Sir Alexander Cunningham. Much rubble was accumulated around the main vihara and during rainy season, the entire complex was filled with water. In 1876, Sir Richard Temple saw statues of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas scattered over wide area and put to mundane use. In 1886, Sir Edwin Arnold visited Buddhagaya and was shocked to see the dilapidated structure and when he went to Srilanka, he discussed with the Buddhists about reviving the Mahavihara.
In 1891, a young Buddhist Anagarik Dhammapala along with his friend,a Japanese monk Kozen Gunaratna while travelling from Gaya to Buddhgaya, saw broken Buddha images scattered everywhere. At Buddhagaya, Anagaraik Dhammapala noticed the Buddha, Bodhisattva and various decorative motifs plastered to the walls of an irrigating well. The Buddha images were used as weights to the levers for drawing out water. Carved stones were used as steps by the Mahant’s followers for their houses. He saw a 3 feet beautiful image of the Buddha lying in the rubbish to the east of Mahant’s baradari. Anagarik Dhammapala bowed in front of the Vajrasana. While inquiring he found that the Mahant would not allow anyone to worship the Buddha idol.
On 25th February, Dhammapala went to the Mahavihara with a highly prized possession. His Japanese friend had given him a 700 year old Buddha image to be placed in the Mahavihara at an appropriate place. When Dhammapala placed it in the alter and offered flowers and was bowing to pray, suddenly he was surrounded by a group of Mahant’s disciple and they forcefully took the image and threw it on the floor. Later on these men were identified as Mahendra Giri, Bhimaldev Giri, Jaipal Giri and Vijayananda and others. The image was later on kept against the wall of Panchpandav temple that the Mahant had built with the stones and pillars taken from the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. On the same day Dhammapala filed a police complaint.
From 1891 to 1893, Anagarik Dhammapala visited the Buddhagaya Mahabodhi Mahavihara seven times. In between, he was also touring various countries giving lectures on Buddhism and creating awareness on the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. Many a times he had asked the Mahant to vacate the premise, even to an extent of offering him whatever money he asked for. The Mahant ignored his request and asked Dhammapala to restrict himself to worshipping only the image and not interfere in any of their activities. To fight the cause of Mahabodhi Mahavihara, The Mahabodhi Society was formed in Srilanka on 31st May 1891.
The Lt. Governor General of Bengal, Sir Ashley Eden had visited Buddhagaya and the Mahant met him claiming that the Buddhagaya Mahabodhi Mahavihar was a Hindu temple. To prove his point, the Mahant had kept 30-40 people offering pindadaan at the Bodhi tree during the Lt.Gov.General’s visit. Sir Charles Elliot wrote an article on this in Mahabodhi Society Journal, Jan.1895. Since the Lt. Gov. Gen. already knew about the Mahabodhi Mahavihara, he did not heed to whatever the Mahant said.
After few days, while the Buddhist monks and shramneras were offering their evening prayers at the Bodhi tree, they were forced to leave the complex. Later on armed men beat them with sticks and the monks and shramneras were seriously assaulted and as noted in the police case – the floor of the
Burmese guest house was stained with blood. Anagarik Dhammapala wrote about this in various newspapers and journals across the world.
On 25th February 1895, Dhammapala was attacked by the Mahant’s people. For four years he had requested, pleaded and even offered to pay the Mahant for leaving the premise of Mahabodhi Mahavihara; when the Mahant ignored and started pressurizing Dhammapala, he registered a petition
with the Gaya District Magistrate, D.J.Macpherson who started the hearing on 8th April 1895. Dhammapala was 29 years old then. He had sworn that the main image of the Buddha in the Mahavihara was draped in orange color cloth, there was paint on the forehead with flowers on the head. This defilement hurt him as a Buddhist. The Mahant had also kept a Hindu pujari for worshipping the image of the Buddha with arti (chanting with a handbell in one hand and shaking it to ring and moving in a circulating fashion) from January 1895 onwards. Fearing that this was the way the Mahant
wanted to capture the Mahabodhi Mahavihara, Anagarik Dhammapal filed a petition. The trial opened on 8th April 1895. The trial was long
and many people were called to testify. Some names and what they testified is as follows:
Bipin Bihari Banerjee – I have never entered the Mahabodhi Mahavihar as it was a Buddhist temple and since I ama Hindu, I am forbade from entering it.
Dr. Hari Das Chatterjee – I have never entered since it is a Buddhist place of worship
Durga Shankar Bhattacharya – It is a Buddhist temple and the Mahant takes all that is received as donation. He has even taken all valuables donated by the Burmese King and keeps in a room, which was shown to me by his disciple.
Pandit Gangadhar Shastri – Hindus don’t worship the Buddha born in Kapilvastu. Our shastras forbade even looking at the Buddha
Mahatali Sumangala, Buddhist monk from Srilanka – I was present when the image of the Buddha was picked up and thrown on floor. Then the people of Mahant hit Dhammapala.
In a 102 pages judgement on 19th July 1895, D. J. Macpherson charged the three Giri’s, namely Jaipal Giri, Mahendra Giri and Bimal Deo Giri and two others under Sections 295, 296 and 297 of the Indian Penal Code which make it a criminal offence to desecrate a place or object of worship, to disrupt lawful act of worship and trespass place of worship. All five were also charged under Section 143 for unlawful assembly to commit any of the above offence. One was charged under Section 352 for using criminal force against Anagarik Dhammapal. All were sentenced to 1 month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- each. The Mahant appealed to the Calcutta High Court which set aside the convictions.
When Lord Curzon became the Viceroy, he was presented with the petition to save the Bodhi tree and the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. He genuinely decided to free the Mahabodhi Mahavihara from the clutches of the Mahant. During his visit in 1903, the Mahant came to meet him and Lord Curzon asked Mahant that being a Hindu, why did he worship the Buddha. The Mahant replied that he looked upon Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu upon which Lord Curzon pointed out that the Mahant is a devotee of Shiva not Vishnu. The Mahant could not reply.
Anagarik Dhammapala began a campaign to win sympathy of liberal Hindus and the newly emerged INC. During the 1922, Gaya Conference of the INC, the Mahabodhi Society distributed booklet giving the history and arguing for its control of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. The Burmese delegate (Burma was part of India at that time) too asked for a commission to be set up. Rajendra Prasad was chosen to be the head of committee. One of the members of this committee was Swami Ramodar Das who later on became a Buddhist and a monk and became famous as Rahul Sankrutyayan. Around 1925, it was decided to have a joint effort of INC and the All India Hindu Mahasabha (an influential but conservative Hindu body). Anagaraik Dhammapala addressed the 4000 gathering of the Mahasabha. A resolution was passed stating that the Buddhist have a right to worship in the Mahavihara complex and to have a say in its management. The Mahant notoriously disagreed. In 1928, the Burmese MLA, U Tok Kyi introduced a bill to accommodate Buddhists from India, Srilanka and Burma for a management board.
Anagarik Dhammapala had become old and in increasingly poor health. He bowed out of this struggle, leaving the work to his deputy, Devapriya Valisinha. In 1933 Anagarik Dhammapala died, without seeing the goal of his life fulfilled. His 42 year battle to ensure control of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara by the Buddhists was fought single-handedly, many a times at the risk of his own life.
After the death of Anagarik Dhammapal, The Mahabodhi Society along withthe Buddhists of India and neighboring countries kept on pursuing the issue of Buddhagaya. They had cultivated a good rapport with many Hindus who had understood the issue and were ready to help. An all India conference of the All India Hindu Mahasabha was conveyed at Kanpur in 1935. A well known Burmese Buddhist monk U Ottama was elected chairman of the conference and a large number of Buddhists from India, Srilanka and Burma attended this conference. They formed another committee to help Rajendra Prasad committee and expressed their support to the bill. While the bill was being presented in the conference, many Hindu swamis rushed to the dias to prevent it being passed.
On 6th March 1937, Rajendra Prasad placed the bill before the All India Congress and urged that the new ministers immediately take up the matter. All the Buddhist countries started putting their diplomatic pressures for the Mahabodhi Mahavihara. Immediately after the Independence, The
Mahabodhi Society sponsored a joint Buddhist – Hindu conference at Patna. Since the mahant was still not ready to accept the terms, it was decided to have a joint control over the Mahavihara. In the same year, in the Inter Asia Conference held at Delhi, delegates from China, Tibet, Nepal, Burma and Srilanka urged the new Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru to bring a quick and satisfactory resolution to this problem. Nehru wanted to end this problem, since he felt it would be good that the neighboring countries look to India as a friend.
Finally after years of lobbying, in 1948, a draft of The Bodhgaya Temple Act was circulated for public comment. The Act would provide for a committee consisting of four Buddhists and four Hindus with the District Magistrate as ex-officio chairman. It was a great disappointment to the Buddhist since the
chairman inevitably would have been a Hindu and hence the committee would always be a Hindu majority. This act was condemned; yet generally it was felt that since the Buddhist were going to get some share, it was finally passed on 19th June 1949. This act came to be known as The Bodh Gaya
Temple Act 1949 (BGTA). On 28th May 1953, on Vaishakh Pournima, a ceremonial transfer of control from mahant to the committee took place.
In 1966, a Draft Master Plan for development of Buddhagaya was published which envisaged acquiring 300 acres of land around the Mahavihara to undertake excavation. A fund of Rs.17.00 lacs was also sanctioned. The plan never took off…Yet the Buddhists were unrest with the combined control. A
Buddhist place ought to remain with the Buddhist and not with anyone of other faith. By 1980, the resurgent Hindu fundamentalism had begun and there occurred a series of unfortunate events at Bodhgaya.
In 1991, Laloo Prasad Yadav had become the Chief Minister of Bihar. In 1992, he circulated a copy of a draft of a new bill that would replace the existing BGTA 1949 with a new Bodh Gaya Mahavihar Act (BGMA) which would hand over the complete management to Buddhist. The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) opposed the bill with support of Hindu fundamentalists and suddenly Buddhagaya became drawn into the centre of India’s dirty religious politics…
The World Heritage Committee of UNESCO declared the Mahabodhi Temple as World Heritage site in June 2002. UNESCO noted “The temple complex has direct association with the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained the supreme and perfect insight. The temple is of immense importance being one of the earliest temple constructions existing in the Indian sub-continent”
The Constitution of India promises its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Thus it guarantees equality in the matter of religion to all individuals and groups irrespective of their faith emphasizing that there is no religion of the State itself.
For better management of Bodh Gaya Temple and its properties, the Legislature of the State of Bihar enacted the BGT Act from 6th July 1949. The preamble does not provide any significant information about the historical or cultural importance of the Buddha, Buddhism and the Mahabodhi Mahavihara itself. The omission of any positive aspect of the Buddha or Buddhism reflect not only the “upper class” mentality of the legislators of Bihar at that time that enacted the law but also a hostile approach to Buddhism which stands for equality, rationality and humanism.
Section 3 of this BGT Act states that a nine member management committee consisting of a Chairman (Gaya District Collector), four Buddhists and four Hindus including the Mahant (the same notorious lineage) of Bodhgaya. It also states that the mahant need to be only Shaivite Hindu and in the event he is unable to perform the duties, then he should be replaced ONLY by another HINDU member. Thus the BGT Act has been designed to be typically PRO-HINDU, since the composition of the committee would be four Buddhists and five Hindus at any given time.
The sub section 3 of Section 3 of this BGT Act also states that if the Chairman is a non-Hindu, then he should be replaced by the Government with another Hindu official.
On 13th August 2013, the State Government of Bihar suddenly woke up and realized that the Constitution of India stands for secular state and secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution and hence the sub section 3 of Section 3 of BGT Act 1949 is prejudicial to secularism and should be
immediately deleted.
The BGT Act is in sharp contrast to Shri Jagannath Temple Act of 1955 (SJT Act) which clearly talks of the importance and historicity of the Jagannath temple. Section 6 (2), states that ONLY HINDUS should be accepted as members of the committee. Section 6 (3), clearly states that if the Government nominated officials are NON-HINDUS then the Government should appoint another officials who should be ONLY HINDUS. Section 7 (1) of SJT Act says that the Raja of Puri is the Chairman of the committee. However if the Raja is minor or disabled, then the Govt. should appoint ONLY HINDU to this post.
Another example – Rajasthan’s Shri Sanvaliaji Temple Act 1992 under Section 6, sub section 2 (i) & (iii) states that out of the eight Govt. nominated officials, five should be HINDU esp. VAISHNAVITES.
In the BGT Act Section 10 under “Duties of the Committee”, the sub section (1) (d) states that the committee will “ensure proper performance of worship at temple and ‘pindadaan’ on the temple land”.
This is a GROSS VIOLATION of the basic tenet of Buddhism, since Buddhism does not believe in all such illogical and blind faith promoting actions. Thus, forcing the HINDU thoughts on the BUDDHISTs’ place of worship is a gross violation of rights of one religion.
Another Section 13 of BGT Act mentions that the “committee shall have no jurisdiction over the movable or immovable property of the SHAIVITE MONASTERY of Bodhgaya”. In the same act under Section 8 (1) & (2), it states that the committee has right to transfer or lease the property of the
(Bodhgaya) temple on sanction of the committee. Since the majority of the committee members are HINDUS, it clearly means that the HINDUS can CONTRL ALL ASSETS and AFFAIRS of the Bodhgaya temple, but NO ONE can control the assets of the unauthorized and illegal encroachment of the
SHAIVITE temple of Bodhgaya.
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage in its own way all affairs in matters of religion.
Does the BGT Act 1949 follow the Indian Constitution? What do the various HINDU temples Act say?
In 1992, Bhante Arya Nagarjun Surai Sasai along with Bhante Ananda Mahathero through the Mahabodhi Mahavihara All India Action Committee started an agitation to ensure return of the Mahabodhi Mahavihar to the Buddhists. Their peaceful protest was supported by Buddhists from all
over the world. Their requests to the Government of India and Government of Bihar to amend the BGT Act 1949 have fallen on deaf ears.
In July 2002, the renowned Buddhist scholar, Bhante Prajnasheel wrote to Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, demanding that the Mahabodhi Mahavihara be handed over to the Buddhists.
On 30th March 2005, The National Commission for Minorities stated, “The provisions of the BGT Act 1949 are not in harmony with the fundamental right enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right of freedom to every religious denomination to manage their respective religious
affairs. Appropriate legal measures should be taken to ensure that all members of the committee entrusted with the management and control of the Bodhgaya Temple, including the Mahabodhi Mahavihara in Bihar, are Buddhists”. Not even the Ministry for Social Justice took any notice of this.
In India and elsewhere in the world, every religion has its own set of committee members to manage their shrines. Then why is that Buddhagaya’s Mahabodhi Mahavihara being controlled by people from other religion? Why is this atrocious BGT Act 1949 not amended even after so long?
“The Pandharpur Temples Act 1973” in its preamble states, “An Act to provide for the abolition of all the hereditary rights, privileges of ministrants and priestly classes functioning in the Temples of Vitthal and Rukmini at Pandharpur; for the acquisition of such rights and privileges and for vesting thereof in a Committee established for the purpose; for the payment of amounts for such acquisitions for providing for better administration and governance of these Temples; their endowments and the amalgamations of the trusts and for better matters connected with the purposes aforesaid ”.
It is well known that the Pandharpur temples were controlled by the Badves, Utpats, Sevadharis, Kolis, Benaris, Dange, Dingre, Diwate, Hardas, Kshetropadhye, Pujaris and Paricharaks who had absolute right and control over various daily functions. This Act is designed “to abolish all their hereditary rights and privileges….and in no case demand, solice or receive or accept any dakshinas…”
Section 21 of this Act clearly states that out of the 12 members committee, 11 members would be appointed by by the State Government including the Chairman and 1 member would be the President of the Pandharpur Municipal Council. As mentioned in the Act, both the Chairman and the President of the Council “should be devotees of God Vittal and Goddess Rukmini”.
Section 22 (h) of this Act clearly states that a person can be disqualified from the committee “if he does not profess the Hindu religion”. In a way, all members should be only HINDUS Section 34 (1) of this Act, on appointment of Executive Officer states that apart from being in active service in State Government, the “person should profess the Hindu religion and who is a devotee of God Vithal and Goddess Rukmini and has to accordingly make a declaration”.
If a Hindu faith temple has a committee consisting of ONLY HINDUS, then why is the Mahabodhi Mahavihar controlled by HINDUS and NOT BUDDHISTS?
If an Act for Pandharpur can be amended, then why not the Act for Mahabodhi Mahavihara be amended? If the badves, utpats, etc can be removed by changing the Act of Pandharpur temple, then why the HINDU MAHANTS can’t be removed from the Mahabodhi Mahavihara by changing
the Act?
Shani Shingnapur, Newasa district of Ahmednagar, Maharashtra is another place of faith for the Hindus. An Act to re-constitute a public trust became a Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trusts (Shingnapur) Act in 2018.
The preamble of this Act states that “complaints have been received by the State Government regarding irregular management of the previous Board……..it is expedient to enact a separate law to re-constitute the Trust and to provide for the management by a committee….”
Section 5(2) of this Act states that the committee will have 11 members; out of which the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasurer would be Govt. appointee.
Section 8(1) (b) states that “a person to be appointed as a member of the committee should be a devotee of Shree Shanaishwar of Newasa and he has to make such a declaration in a prescribed form”.
The Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act 2004 came into force from 23rd August 2004. In Section 8 (b), it states that a person to be appointed as a member of the committee “should be a devotee of Shree Sai Baba and shall, prior to his appointment make such a declaration in the prescribed form”.
Section 13 (2) of this Act states that “The Executive Officer may be selected from amongst the officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector provided that such officer shall be a devotee of Shree Sai Baba and shall make such declaration in the prescribed form”.
The Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983 came into force on 28th January 1983. Section 3 of this Act states – “No person shall, unless he is a Hindu by religion, be eligible for being or continuing as a member of the Board or Executive Committee or as a Chief Executive Officer or as an employee of the Temple and every person shall cease to hold office or to exercise any power or discharge any function as such when he ceases to be a Hindu”. The most eye-opening section!!!
Section 6 (2) informs that there would be 15 members in the committee out of which as per sub section (l) three eminent Hindu scholars well versed in Hindu theology, to be nominated by the State Government.
Section 6 (3) states – “where a member of the Board cannot perform his duties as such by reason of the fact that he is not a Hindu, the person available next below him in this behalf shall be a member of the Board for the time being”. This refers to Government nominee board member.
Section 14 (a) on duties of the Board states – “to arrange for due and proper performance of worship, service and rituals, daily or periodical, general or special, of Sri Kashi Vishwanath and other deities in the Temple, ceremonies and other religious observances in accordance with the Hindu Shastras and scriptures and usage”.
Section 19 (3) about Executive Committee states – “where a member of the Executive Committee cannot perform his duties as such by reason of the fact that he is not a Hindu, the person available next below him in this behalf, shall serve on the Committee.
Article 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution gives one a right to practice, propagate, worship, manage, promote and help financially to the religion that one desires. i.e. it gives me absolute right to manage my own religious institutions.
The examples that I have given above are of few Hindu religious places / institution and as mentioned in their Act, all the members of the committee, by rule, should be essentially Hindus. Then the question arises, why only in Bodhgaya Mahabodhi Mahavihara, we have a committee having majority of Hindus? Isn’t it unfair, biased and atrocious? There are examples where rules or Acts are changed to present situation, then why can’t Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 change? Personally, I have nothing against any religion, but I hate when one religion tries to dominate over other religion even after knowing the facts…I am sure even you would agree with me.
I request you to support the cause “Change the atrocious BGT Act 1949. Let Bodhgaya Management Committee consists only of the Buddhists”. Your suggestions and participation is most essential. Drop an email or sms on Whatsapp to show that you stand by me…
With metta,
Atul Bhosekar
President, Boudh Sahitya Prasarak Mandal
91-9545277410
bhosekaratul@gmail.com