Indian History and the destruction of ancient Buddhist sites [Nalanda was severely damaged in a fire set by Hindu fanatics]

The Caravan

Monumental Absence
The destruction of ancient Buddhist sites
By DN Jha | 1 June 2018

Over his decorated career as a historian, DN Jha has devoted himself to examining flawed views of India’s ancient and medieval past—many of them produced by colonial thinkers—that sustain the Hindu nationalist project. One of his most notable books, The Myth of the Holy Cow, documents the widespread prevalence of beef-eating in ancient India. Another, Rethinking Hindu Identity, argues that the notion of Hinduism as a religion is a colonial construct.

Jha’s new book, Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History, is a collection of essays that, as he writes, “are addressed to the people vulnerable to the balderdash peddled by the Hindu Right.” In this essay, excerpted from the volume, he applies his characteristic combination of polemic and rigour to a greatly disregarded part of Indian history, and points to evidence that shatters the Hindutva notion of a pre-Islamic idyll on the subcontinent. [ . . . ]

FULL TEXT HERE http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reviews-and-essays/dn-jha-destruction-buddhist-sites

Thai nationalism and the rise of Buddhist extremism (David Hutt)

South East Asia - Globe

Thai nationalism and the rise of Buddhist extremism

POSTED ON: February 11, 2016 | Current Affairs - Featured - Thailand | By: David Hutt

As a campaign to make Buddhism the state religion of Thailand ramps up, concerns about radicalism have come to the fore, along with concern over how this renewed religiosity could be used in an already divided country

From our February 2016 issue – download the complete issue via our app here 

Meedee Korn does not want to name the religion he believes is threatening Buddhism in Thailand. He means Islam, but refuses to say this, even after several prompting questions. He simply refers to it as “a religion”.

Connections: monks gather before a ceremony at Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which counts some of Thailand’s most powerful politicians among its members. Photo: Dario Pignatelli/Polaris

“There is a religion that wants to take advantage of this country,” said Korn, a bespectacled, middle-aged man who speaks just above a whisper and in short, clipped sentences. Proving just as reticent when it came to providing examples of how Muslims are supposedly taking advantage of Thailand, he adds elusively that “if other religions want to destroy Buddhism in Thailand” it is the duty of the faithful to prevent it from happening.

Korn is the secretary of the Committee to Promote Buddhism as the State Religion (CPBSR). Formed late last year, its goal is to lobby the government to, as its name suggests, make Buddhism the official religion of Thailand. Since the first of Thailand’s 18 constitutions was declared in 1932, Buddhism has never had this designation. But when the military junta came to power in last May’s coup, they abrogated the former constitution – that required the government to “patronise and protect Buddhism and other religions” – and are currently writing a new one. The CPBSR hopes to persuade those responsible for the drafting to accept their agenda.

According to Korn, Buddhism in Thailand is also being attacked from ‘within’. He worries that the immoral behaviour of monks is increasing and that this is “destroying” the reputation of the religion. Stories of monks being caught drinking alcohol, taking drugs and visiting prostitutes have been reported frequently by the country’s media in recent years. Making Buddhism the state religion, he said, would not only protect it from the alleged onslaught of Islam, but would also create new powers to punish ‘immoral’ monks with formal legislation, rather than just by the customary practice of defrocking.   

Since the CPBSR arrived on the scene late last year, commentators have been divided over its significance. One suggestion is that the effort to make Buddhism, the religion of more than 90% of the population, Thailand’s state religion is the caprice of a few opinionated individuals who are unlikely to meet with success. As a Bangkok Post editorial in October put it: those responsible for drafting the new constitution should “dispose of this matter quickly, and move on with important matters”.

However, another view is that the movement to make Buddhism Thailand’s state religion reflects a much larger issue: the radicalisation of Thai Buddhism, fuelled by anti-Muslim sentiment. During the past few years, a great deal of attention has been paid to Buddhist extremism in Myanmar, the rise to prominence of the Mandalay monk Wirathu – who was dubbed “The Face of Buddhist Terror” by Time magazine in 2013 – and the hardline Buddhist nationalist Ma Ba Tha movement that has successfully lobbied the government to introduce both pro-Buddhist and anti-Muslim legislation.

Now, attention is shifting to Thailand, as the opinions of some of country’s Buddhist officials appear to be swinging to the extreme. On October 29, 2015, a high-ranking Buddhist monk from a Bangkok pagoda wrote on his Facebook page that a mosque should be “burned” for every Buddhist monk killed, adding that this eye-for-an-eye retribution should start “from the northern part of Thailand [heading] southwards”.

In a November Reuters article, these comments were used a few paragraphs below those of Somchai Surachatri, a spokesman for the National Office of Buddhism, a government agency, who said Buddhism could one day be “devoured” in Thailand, adding that he feared Muslims were buying land to build mosques throughout the country.

Steadfast: Meedee Korn, a key figure in the push to make Buddhism Thailand’s state religion, discusses his beliefs. Photo: Vittorio Valesquez

Since 2004, tensions have escalated in Thailand’s three restive southern provinces, where the population is mostly comprised of Malay-speaking Muslims. There, a bellicose insurgency movement has fought for autonomy for decades and, during the past ten years, more than 6,000 people have been killed in the struggle. On occasion, Muslim insurgents have murdered Buddhist monks.

In a 2009 essay, Duncan McCargo, a professor of political science at the University of Leeds, described “a growing sense that Buddhism was under threat from a resurgent and militant Islam concentrated in the south.” He added that the rise of “Buddhist chauvinism” counters claims that the religion is “inclusivist and tolerant.”

However, speaking to Southeast Asia Globe, McCargo said that efforts to make Buddhism Thailand’s state religion were not simply motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment, nor was the growth of Buddhist extremism in the country a mere imitation of what is happening across the border in Myanmar, as some commentators have suggested.

As he noted, the CPBSR is not the first group to campaign for Buddhism to be made Thailand’s state religion. An unsuccessful effort was launched in 2007, following another military coup that abrogated an earlier constitution and set about creating a new one.

Instead, according to McCargo, efforts to make Buddhism the state religion of Thailand reflect a growing “set of collective national anxieties” among Thais, which go to the heart of the country’s self-identity.

During the past two decades, Thailand has undergone monumental social changes. The World Bank puts Thailand’s rate of urbanisation at 1.4% each year – just below the regional average. As anthropologists have documented over the past two centuries, urbanisation results in traditional ways of life being severed. Family bonds often make way for individualism, community ties are cut, social classes are revolutionised and the symbols of self-identity must be altered.

“In Thailand, discourses concerned with urbanity/rurality are played out every day in the Thai media, education, economy, politics, so that Thais are always aware of these spatial differences,” wrote James Taylor in his book Buddhism and Postmodern Imaginings in Thailand.

Globalisation and the growth of capitalism have also irreversibly altered the way many Thais live and think, and the legacy of the 1997 economic crisis continues to linger, casting doubt among the populace on the benefits of ‘progress’.

Power and influence: Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha pays respect to monks at a ceremony in Bangkok to celebrate the birthday of a royal family member. Reuters/Damir Sagolj

The result, argues Taylor, is that “Thai people feel more insecure than at any time in the past”. Because of this, he wrote, “Thai Buddhism… is caught in the contradictions of history and tradition.”

According to Taylor, the impact of ‘modernity’ and Western influence on Thailand is often believed to be leading to “secularisation and [religious] disenchantment… Buddhism [in Thailand] is seen as increasingly marginalised or privatised.”

However, what Taylor found in Thai cities was a growing nostalgia for what he calls “country things”, especially the traditional position of Buddhism at the centre of rural Thai society. “It seems that middle-class urban Thais have a nostalgia for an imaginary rurality and its contentment,” he wrote.

Such nostalgia has led many Thai urbanites to imitate rural ways of life, such as wearing rural, traditional clothing or purchasing country homes for weekend escapes. It is even reflected in popular culture, such as in the nang yon yuk, or ‘returning to the past’, film genre. Taylor argues that this represents a search for permanence at a time when society is changing, and one element that “insecure” Thais have clutched onto is Buddhism, which he adds has long been a “signifier of Thai-ness”.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun agrees. The associate professor at Kyoto University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies said that since Thai society is undergoing a “major and fragile transformation, Buddhist extremism has found its way to dominate social thought”.

Declaring Buddhism the state religion, he continued, would provide some much-needed stability by giving Thais a consistent reference point for self-identity. “It would boost a sense of nationhood based on Buddhism – this would also lead to a sense of nationalism,” he said.

Or, as McCargo put it: “Making Buddhism a national religion forms part of an attempt to return to imagined earlier certainties and unities, and to reify and reinforce the existence of a ‘Thai-ness’ that now seems increasingly elusive.”

But it is not only society that is undergoing fundamental changes. At the same time, Thailand is also experiencing political transformations – or, some might say, political anarchy.

For more than half a century, Thailand has lurched from one political crisis to another, as elected governments are overthrown by military coups only for the entire cycle to repeat itself. The more recent conflict began in 2006 when the elected prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was ousted in a military coup. This resulted in political divisions between Thaksin loyalists, often dubbed the Redshirts, and the so-called Yellowshirts, made up of the conservative urban middle-class and elites who have thrown their weight behind the current military junta. “There is the sense that there is no way out of the country’s hopelessly polarised politics,” McCargo said.

One way to provide some stability to this political confusion, said Chachavalpongpun, would be to promote Buddhism as a form of social cohesion. “Particularly now that Thailand is under the custody of the military, an obedient society is needed. And Buddhism can be used toward fulfilling that agenda,” he said. This is why he believes there is a good chance that Korn and the CPBSR will be successful.

Protection: soldiers escort a Buddhist monk while he collects alms in southern Thailand. Photo: AP/David Longstreath

“The state will be able to use this as a tool to create a sense of sacredness for itself in the same way as the lèse majesté law is used,” the Buddhist scholar Vichak Panich told the Bangkok Post in October.

If the military junta does use Buddhism to create order and curb dissent, it would hardly be innovative. As McCargo wrote in a 2004 essay: “The Thai sangha [Buddhist order] has long been an uncritical collaborator with the state, legitimating the state without comment and without reproof.”

If Buddhism does become Thailand’s state religion, it could create some stability in a country where it is lacking. Critics of the military junta, however, would argue that this would not be stability as much as control. There is also the very real concern that it would escalate an already perilous situation in the country’s southern provinces, where much of the Muslim population feels alienated and oppressed by the government.

McCargo is pessimistic about the possibilities: “I feel the greater mainstreaming of the clamour for Buddhism to become a national religion is an ominous sign.”

***

Dhammakaya and the supreme patriarch

Based in the lavish Wat Dhammakaya in Pathum Thani province, the Dhammakaya movement is the world’s fastest-growing Buddhist sect, with more than 40 branches around the world, including the Dhammakaya Open University in Azusa, California. Since its rise to prominence in the 1990s, it has sparked controversy in its native Thailand for promoting materialism. Many critics have labelled it a secretive, commercially-minded cult that teaches a distorted interpretation of Buddhism and fools people into believing they can buy a better reincarnation. As the Bangkok Post wrote: “[It] teaches that the amount of merit points you get in life depends on the amount of money you donate to Dhammakaya.”

There have been accusations that the Dhammakaya sect is also a power base for the ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and, therefore, tied to his loyal Redshirt movement, although such claims are highly debatable. Despite its detractors, nobody can doubt the importance of the Dhammakaya sect in Thailand, and it now appears that its influence extends all the way up the Buddhist hierarchy.
In 2013, Thailand’s late supreme patriarch – the country’s most senior monk – passed away at the age of 100 and was cremated last December. On January 14, the Sangha Supreme Council – the highest Buddhist body in the country – nominated Maha Ratchamangalacharn, a controversial 90-year-old abbot of Wat Pak Nam Phasi Charoen, to ascend to the top role.

The frontrunner for the post for many months, there has been intense opposition to Ratchamangalacharn’s nomination because of his purported ties with the Wat Dhammakaya sect and his alleged tax evasion. Sulak Sivaraksa, a social critic, told the Bangkok Post that if Ratchamangalacharn does become the supreme patriarch “a dark era of Buddhism in Thailand will come”.

The nomination must now go to the government for formal acceptance. However, there is no guarantee the military junta will accept the decision, especially as Ratchamangalacharn is alleged to have links to the opposition Redshirt movement.

A petition, signed by 1.7 million people, was submitted to Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha last month, asking him to ignore the nomination and instead give King Bhumibol Adulyadej the sole power to appoint a different supreme patriarch.

***

The Constitution

After the coup of May 2014, Thailand’s constitution was rescinded and the military junta formed the longwinded National Legislative Assembly and Constitution Drafting Committee to write a new one. However, that charter was rejected in September 2015 by the National Reform Council – a legislative body also set up in 2014 by the military – with 135 lawmakers voting against it and only 105 in favour.

The rejected draft included provisions for the establishment of a committee made up of senior officers from the country’s military, along with a number of ‘experts’, that would be able to intervene in politics at times of “national crisis”. It would have also changed the country’s upper house so that it was only partially elected, with just 123 members out of 200 elected by voters, a move many commentators criticised as undemocratic.

Following the rejection of the proposals, a new body was formed to draft yet another constitution, which is expected to be completed by April. The possibility of a democratic election has been pushed back to at least 2017.

Keep reading:
“Thailand’s humiliating hazing rituals are putting lives at risk” – At universities and colleges across Thailand a dangerous tradition of hazing through initiation rites is leaving students exposed to injuries and damaging democratic values

India: Do Maharashtra’s Neo-Buddhists really want – and need – a separate marriage law? (Aarefa Johari)

scroll.in

Personal law
Do Maharashtra’s Neo-Buddhists really want – and need – a separate marriage law?
As the state government appoints a committee to consider the issue, a debate rages within the community of Ambedkarite Buddhists.
Aarefa Johari · 5 October 2015


Once every few years, sections of Maharashtra’s Neo-Buddhist community rise up to assert their religious identity by demanding their own personal law, separate from the Hindu Marriage Act that currently governs them.

Last week, the community was back in the headlines as the state government, heeding these demands, constituted a 13-member committee to consider the need for a draft legislation to govern Buddhist marriage and inheritance. The committee includes state social justice and empowerment minister Rajkumar Badole, other senior office-bearers of the social justice and legal departments, lawyers, a retired judge and some representatives of the community.

A separate personal law, according to those who support the demand, would ensure that Buddhist marriage rituals are always considered valid in a court of law. In Maharashtra, they claim, there have been several cases in which the High Court or various district courts have deemed Buddhist marriages illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The government’s decision to form a committee, however, is facing opposition from another section of the Neo-Buddhist community. According to this group, Babasaheb Ambedkar, who led the conversion of lakhs of Dalits to Buddhism in 1956, would never have approved of personal laws on the grounds of religion.

While the supporters of a separate law have been more vocal than the latter, both groups claim to be speaking for the majority of the community.

Hindu Act, customary laws

Maharashtra is home to more than 70% of India’s 84 lakh Buddhists, most of them descendants of the Dalits who converted along with Ambedkar to break away from Hinduism’s oppressive caste system.

By this time, Buddhists had already been clubbed together along with Jains and Sikhs to be governed by the set of four Hindu code bills: the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956.

Technically, for a marriage to be registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, the wedding must include the ritual of saptapadi, or the seven steps around the holy fire. “But this is a purely Vedic ritual applicable only to Hindus,” said lawyer Prakash Ambedkar, the grandson of Babasaheb Ambedkar and leader of the Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh political party.

For non-Hindus – Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Scheduled Tribes and even some Other Backward Class communities whose rituals don’t involve saptapadi – the Act makes provisions for customary laws, said Prakash Ambedkar. “Under customary provisions, marriages based on the rituals of these other communities are also considered valid.”

This has not satisfied minority communities. In 2012, after years of persistence, the Sikhs were granted their own personal law with the passing of amendments to the Anand Marriage Act of 1909. For some Buddhist leaders in Maharashtra, however, the struggle still continues.

Three court cases

Nitin Raut, a Congress leader and former legislator from Nagpur, describes the draft Buddhist Marriage and Succession Act as his “baby”. In 2007, after framing the draft law and proposing it in the state Assembly, Raut went on a day-long hunger strike to demand that his “non-official bill” be passed.

Raut believes that the provisions of customary laws within the Hindu Marriage Act have not been enough to safeguard the legal status of marriages that take place with Buddhist rituals.

In Maharashtra, Neo-Buddhist weddings typically require the bride, groom and an officiating priest to chant prayers and take oaths before images of the Buddha and Babasaheb Ambedkar. The union is then registered under the Hindu Marriage Act with the local government registrar.

But as examples of how things often go wrong, Raut and other activists frequently cite three landmark cases in the Bombay High Court where marriages of Buddhist couples were declared invalid. The first is the Shakuntala-Nilkanth case of 1973, which involved a woman whose husband had abandoned her and remarried. Shakuntala’s maintenance allowance plea was dismissed because the court held that her marriage was not valid: the couple had married through Buddhist rites even though they had not legally converted at the time of marriage and were still “Hindu” on paper. The High Court ruled that “the fact that such marriages are taking place for the last 10 to 15 years is not enough to establish custom”.

After the similar cases of Baby-Jagtap in 1981 and Rekha-Ashok in 1985, says Raut, the court itself directed the state government to consider making amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act. “So far, nothing has been done,” he said.

‘We don’t need a separate law’

While Raut’s demand for a Buddhist marriage law focuses heavily on these cases of “wronged” couples, other community leaders see the issue as simply a matter of identity.

“Buddhism is entirely different from Hinduism – the point of converting with Babasaheb was to assert that we are not Hindus anymore,” said Jogendra Kawade, president of the Peoples Republican Party and former MP from Nagpur. “We don’t walk around holy fires. Our marriage rituals need legal recognition of their own.”

For Prakash Ambedkar and his supporters, however, this idea is against the spirit of Ambedkar’s teachings. “Babasaheb strongly believed that there should be a common personal code for people of all religions,” said Prakash Ambedkar, referring to his grandfather’s decision to resign from the Cabinet in 1951 when the government refused to pass his inclusive draft of the Hindu Code Bill. Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews already had their own personal laws, but with the Hindu bill, Ambedkar did not want codes that favoured any one kind of conservative Hinduism.

The current versions of the Hindu Code Bills, amended over the years, are more inclusive than they originally were. “Today the inheritance laws in the Hindu Succession Act, for instance, give women equal right to property and reflect the spirit of Buddhism that Babasaheb had envisioned,” said Sandeep Nandeshwar, a lawyer working at the Nagpur bench of the high court. “We don’t really need a separate Buddhist law.”

Some community leaders believe that the government’s committee was appointed without widespread consultation with the community, and claim that the demand by Raut, Kawade and others is politically motivated.

“The feeling of community identity among Buddhists is a little weak in Maharashtra right now, so a small section of radical Buddhist leaders is demanding a separate law,” said Maruti Kumbhar, Mumbai president of the Satyashodhak OBC Parishad, an organisation that is trying to convert OBCs to Buddhism.

According to Nandeshwar, there can simply be no legal debate about his view that Maharashtra must not have a separate law for Buddhists. “There are many Buddhists outside the state and personal laws are clearly a national subject,” he said. “The state has no power to make laws for specific religions.”

Sri Lanka: Traditional Buddhist wedding cermeony for police dogs upsets culture minister

BBC News


o o o

Sri Lanka police in doghouse over canine wedding ceremony

Culture minister condemns event in which police dog 'couples' were dressed up and 'married' on traditional decorated platform

• Associated Press in Colombo
• theguardian.com, Tuesday 27 August 2013 16.46 BST

One of nine sniffer dog 'couples' married by Sri Lankan police in the town of Kandy. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Sri Lankan police apologised on Tuesday for holding a group wedding ceremony for sniffer dogs after the country's culture minister condemned the event and demanded an investigation.
Nine pairs of police dogs dressed in shawls, hats and socks were placed on a decorated platform like those used in traditional weddings in the ceremony in the central town of Kandy. Their marriages were registered by an official in the presence of vets, doctors, senior police officers and the public.
Local television showed the canine couples being driven away in a decorated police jeep for their "honeymoons". The ceremony attracted wide publicity, and strong criticism from cultural officials.
The culture and arts minister, TB Ekananayake, said the ceremony undermined traditional wedding rituals and should be strongly condemned. He called for an investigation.
Police spokesman Buddhika Siriwardena apologised for any damage to the country's cultural heritage, saying the goal was to breed sniffer dogs domestically.
"This programme is aimed at breeding dogs accustomed to local weather and food, thereby saving money," Siriwardena said, adding that in 2011 the police department spent more than £300,000 importing sniffer dogs from the Netherlands.

Bangladesh: Buddhists face the brunt this time, Editorial, The Daily Star

The Daily Star, April 24, 2013

Editorial
Buddhists face the brunt this time
Places of worship of minorities easy target

Following the large-scale and systematic attack on Buddhist temples in Ramu in the very recent past, Buddhist residents at Patiya have faced similar onslaught. Going by newspaper reports, it is not yet clear which individuals or parties are responsible for carrying out arson attacks accompanied by looting and vandalism of a Buddhist temple and orphanage in the Boalkhali area. The right to worship and religious freedom are enshrined in the Constitution as an inalienable right of every Bangladeshi.
We condemn such incidents in the strongest possible terms any attack on any temple or site considered by any community, large or small, to be holy. What is now evident from the Ramu and Patiya incidents is that there has been a very large failure in intelligence on the part of law enforcement agencies to detect and prevent such well-orchestrated attacks. Incidents such as these require meticulous planning and logistics involving a group or groups of people to execute. With practically all the agencies at the disposal of the State ranging from police to the various intelligence organs concentrated wholly on the activities of opposition parties, it is little wonder that such ‘gaps’ in information gathering about probable attacks on religious sites is sidelined. This is a serious anomaly that must be addressed.
Suffice to say, the failure of the State to guarantee protection of religious minorities smears the country’s image. For in the final analysis of things it is wholly the responsibility of the government to ensure physical safety of community members and preserve the sanctity of places of worship. It has become more imperative than ever to put in place human “intelligence” networks around vulnerable pockets of minority communities. Any failure to protect our fellow brethren belonging to other faiths will automatically strengthen the hands of communal forces in the country. And it will act to undermine the very foundations of the secular State that Bangladesh claims to be.
The collective vigil of the community at large is also vital for ensuring harmony and peace in society.

What I want is neither a Ram Rajya or a Buddha Rajya, but in fact a Lok Rajya

Deccan Chronicle, 25 January 2013

Of religions, castes and men: Kancha Ilaiahm Ajay Navaria, Nirupama Dutt debate at Jaipur Literature Festival

PTI

Jaipur: Coming down heavily on the caste structure in Hindu religion, author Kancha Ilaiah today advocated adopting the Buddha’s ideology as a way to achieve secularism in the country, generating a lively debate among the fellow panelists at the Jaipur Literature Festival here.

Religious conversion, caste structure within religions and position of dalits after conversion were the main talking points of the session titled “God as a Political Philospoher: Dalit Perspectives on Buddhism,” where Ilaiah engaged with author Ajay Navaria and poet Nirupama Dutt.

“A dalit who converts to Christianity can become a pastor or be an equal in the mosque or can touch the Guru Granth Sahib. But he can do none of this in Hinduism. He cannot become anything,” Ilaiah said.

“No dalit can become a priest in a Hindu temple,” said the author of “Why I am not a Hindu” who also pointed out that Buddhism has always advocated the ideas of equality, abolition of caste structure, notion of justice and women’s rights.

However, fellow author and panelist Ajay Navaria, whose collection of stories “Unclaimed Terrain” translated into English has recently been published, disagreed over the issue of the benefits accruing to dalits from conversion and the adoption of Buddhism as the main religion.

“Conversion does not solve any problem. In fact, there is a category in administration of a ‘New Buddhist’ where a person’s original caste is mentioned in brackets even after adopting another religion,” he argued, questioning then the purpose of going through conversion.

“I am not here to advocate Hinduism. But the dalits can go into any religion but their identity is that of an untouchable. They are not liberated even there,” Navaria said, adding, “Religion cannot solve the problem.”

Furthering his argument, poet Nirupama Dutt highlighted the problem of caste structures within religions.

Dutt, who hails from Punjab, drew attention to the phenomenon of Gurudwaras being based on caste. “Today one can find separate Gurudwaras for Sikh Jats, Kabir panthis and the tanners,” she said.

“While Sikhism does not recognize caste, just like in the case of Islam, the situation of the ground is very different from the one visualised in scriptures,” added Dutt.

Drawing attention to the ground realities in countries where religion forms the basis of law, Navaria said the country would not become secular and discrimination-free just by adopting Buddhism.

“I don’t like religion based systems because they end liberty...no religion is detached from caste,” he added.

Even as the panelists disagreed on various issues, they did agree on one thing – that the aim should be that of a caste-free society.

“I don’t agree that caste cannot be abolished or that equality cannot come to India,” Ilaiah said.

And while Navaria disagreed with him on how to achieve this goal, he did outline his vision for India. “What I want is neither a Ram Rajya or a Buddha Rajya, but in fact a Lok Rajya.”

Public Interest Litigation against the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949

(from: The Sikkim Times, Published on the Buddhist Channel March 27, 2012)

Darjeeling, India -- Shri WANGDI TSHERING s/o Late Shri Mingyur Tshering, aged 77 years and a faithful follower of Buddhism has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for handing over the management of The Bodh Gaya Temple over to the hands of Buddhists as The Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 which expressly vests control of the most sacred temple of the Buddhists into the hands of Hindus is ultra vires Article 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India.

The PIL filed by Shri Wangdi Tshering through Advocate Shri J P Dhanda has been listed for hearing on 13-02-2012 in the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

The Bodh Gaya Temple in the state of Bihar is the holiest place for all the Buddhists for it was here that Lord Buddha attained enlightenment and is regarded as the birthplace of Buddhism religion. It can be called the Mecca of Buddhism but this very sacred temple is controlled by Hindus by way of The Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949. That in the past Buddhists, Devotees, Monks and common people from all over India agitated in Bodh Gaya for many years against the illegality of The Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 with even self immolation bids by monks but to no avail. Therefore, it was realized that no Government agency or the authorities that be are going to redress this illegality and grievance of the Buddhists.

The petitioner, Shri Wangdi Tshering who is a public spirited person, an old Buddhist as also an educated man felt deeply the injuries caused to the feelings of the Buddhists. At the same time the petitioner realized that it is a public cause and individuals cannot make much efforts much beyond what has already been made by way of agitations. It was in these circumstances and for the common cause the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Apex Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation.

The relevant provisions of The Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 being challenged are as given below :

That the section 3(1) of the Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949 reads:-

3(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this the 1 (State) Government shall constitute a committee as hereinafter provided and entrust it with the management and control of the temple land and the properties appertaining thereto.

3(2) The committee shall consist of a Chairman and 8 members nominated by the (1) (State) Government, all of whom shall be Indians and of whom four shall be Buddhists and 4 shall be Hindus including the Mahanth.

Provided that if the Mahanth is a minor or of unsound mind or refuses to serve on the committee, another Hindu Member shall be nominated in his place.

3(3) The District Magistrate of Gaya shall be the Ex- Officio Chairman of the committee: Provided that the 1 (State) Government shall nominate a Hindu as Chairman of the committee for the period during which the District Magistrate of Gaya is non-Hindu.

Articles of The Constitution of India which are hit by The Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 are as given below :

Article 25 : Because the Right to Freedom of Religion is a Fundamental Right as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Article 25 (1) Guarantees to every person, and not merely to the citizens of India, the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

Because under Article 25 of the Constitution of India the rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship considered by religion to be its integral and essential part are also secured.

Article 26 : Because Article 26 of the Constitution of India provides freedom to manage religious affairs. It reads- Subject to the public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right:

a. to establish and maintain institution for religious and charitable purposes;

b. to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

c. to own and acquire moveable and immovable property;

d. to administer such property in accordance with law.

Because the Article 26 of the Constitution of India deals with a particular aspect of the religious freedom. Under this Article every religious denomination or a section of it has the guaranteed right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage in its own way all affairs in matters of religion. Rights are also given to such
denomination or a section of it to acquire and own moveable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law.

Article 29 : Because Article 29 of the Constitution of India provides protection of Interests of minorities. As indicated above Buddhist Community is a minority community and its interests are requested to be protected. But the particular provisions i.e., Section 3 (3) of the The
Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949 is ultravires the provisions of the Constitution of India under Article 25, 26 and 27.

Article 30 : Because Article 30 of the Constitution of India provides Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The Buddhist community is a minority community and as the protection of their rights to establish and administer the Educational Institutions similarly the Buddhist community has a right to head their own places of worship
like the Bodhgaya Temple. But the great injustice is being perpetrated as the section 3 (3) of the Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949 ultravires the Constitution. It provides that a Hindu instead of Buddhist will be the Chairman of the Bodhgaya Temple.

Hence Shri Wangdi Tshering has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a prayer to:

a. issue an appropriate writ /order or direction directing the quashing of Section 3(3) of the The Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949;

b. issue an appropriate writ/order or direction directing that the Head of the Bodh Gaya Temple will be a Buddhist and not a Hindu;

c. issue an appropriate writ/order or direction directing the necessary amendment in the The Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949 in Section 3(3) substituting the Chairman of the Committee administering the Bodhgaya Temple as a Buddhist and not a Hindu;

d. issue an appropriate order or direction for handing over the management of the Bodh Gaya Temple including the Mahabodhi Tree and Vajrasan as defined in section 2 of the Bodhgaya Temple Act 1949 to the Buddhists.