By BHIKKHU SILABHADRA
BUDDHA GAYA, the holiest spot-on earth for the Buddhist world, is a few miles off from Gaya, headquarters of the district of the same name in the province of Bihar. Here, at Buddha Gaya, under the holy Bodhi tree, the Lord Buddha attained Enlightenment. The temple that stands by the side of the sacred tree is the Buddha Gaya temple.
It is now settled that the temple was originally built by Emperor Asoka about the 3rd century B.C. It was subsequently renovated by a Brahmin who was a convert to Buddhism. Since then, additions, alterations and repairs were carried out from time to time, these being affected by Buddhists including personages like Meghavarna, the Buddhist King of Ceylon, who built three monasteries to the north of the temple with the permission of the then reigning monarch Samudra Gupta of India. When the famous Chinese traveller Fa-Hien visited the temple in the 5th century A.C., he saw those monasteries. As early as 1079 A.C. there was a complete repair and restoration of the walls of the temple at the instance of the King of Burma. Between 1100 and 1200 A.C., a number of works were carried out in and around the temple under the superintendence of a Buddhist monk, Dharmarakshita, a Buddhist King, the Raja of Sapadalaksha, bearing the cost of the works. Further extensive works of restoration were undertaken by the King of Burma about 1298 A.C.
The temple thus remained in the possession of the Buddhists uninterruptedly for at least 1500 years till the advent of the Mussalmans. During the confusion that naturally prevailed in the country in those days, the temple was neglected and fell into disrepair.
The history of Buddha Gaya after this is obscure for several centuries. The place again came into prominence in 1811 when representatives of the King of Burma visited it. In the meantime, however, the possession of the temple, with all its appurtenances, had mysteriously gone to a Hindu Mahant who promptly and persistently claimed the sacred temple and the lands around it as his own property. His successors have done the same thing and the present incumbent is keeping up the tradition of his predecessors with equal, or even greater, vigour.
The position and power of the Mahants with regard to the sacred place was, strangely enough, recognised by the British Government to such an extent that when, in 1874, the King of Burma sent a letter through delegates with presents for the Bodhi tree, asking the Government of India that the surroundings of the Sacred Tree be reclaimed and that once or twice a year his people might be allowed to take offerings to the Tree, the then District Magistrate of Gaya, one Mr. Palmer, actually wrote and asked the Mahant whether he approved of and agreed to the suggestions of the King of Burma.
As a result of all this correspondence, the repair of the temple was finally undertaken on behalf of the King of Burma. But the Government of India was not quite pleased with the way the work was being executed and deputed General Cunningham and Dr. Rajendra Lal Mitra to supervise the repairs and an Engineer to execute them. It was a lengthy affair, the work took a long time and cost a great deal of money. In the course of execution of the works, the old Maha Bodhi tree fell down and two saplings from it were planted in two places, one in its original place to the west of the temple, the other to the north thereof. During this time, a government official, Mr. Maddox, was put in charge of the temple, although it was made clear and the government was only too anxious to do so-that “the building is not the property of the Government and is only taken charge of with the consent of the Mahant.”
As long as the British remained in India, they, for political reasons, turned the Mahant into their spoiled child, and this policy was the cause of tremendous difficulties and endless confusion in the path of those who desired to see a peaceful settlement of the question of possession of the temple between the usurper Mahant on one side and the Buddhist Com- munity on the other.
While the repairs were going on, Sir Edwin Arnold, the famous author of the poem Light of Asia, had been moving the British Government in England and the Government of India and writing in the press appealing to have the temple restored to the Buddhists. His appeal drew wide sympathy, but was otherwise unsuccessful, although it took root and spread far and quickly. Mr. Dharmapala, the founder of the Maha Bodhi Society of India, visited Gaya early in 1891, and the Maha Bodhi Society was founded in May of the same year. Immediately after coming into being, the Society took up in right earnest the Buddha Gaya Temple question and has ever since been trying to secure control of the temple for the Buddhists.
In 1894, when Mr. Dharmapala was returning to India after attending the Congress of Religions in America, he was presented with the beautiful image of Buddha by the monks of Japan who requested him to instal the image in the Buddha Gaya temple. Dharmapala intimated his intention to instal the image, in accordance with the request of the Japanese monks, in the temple to the Magistrate of Gaya who consulted the Mahant about The Mahant agreed to the installation at first but subsequently recanted.
On the 25th February 1895, Dharmapala attempted to instal the image on the upper floor of the temple, but was assaulted by the Mahant’s men. This resulted in a criminal prosecution of the Mahant’s men who were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a month and a fine of Rs. 100/-.
On appeal the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The matter went up for revision to the High Court which set aside the conviction. Nothing came out of these criminal proceedings. The crucial question is one of the titles to the temple. This question was not, and could not be, decided by the criminal courts, and the parties were left where they stood before the litigation. It is only the Civil Court that can decide the question of title, and unfortunately neither party thought of going to a civil court.
After the Criminal case ended in favour of the Mahant, the Japanese image was kept in the Burmese Rest House. In April 1896, the Collector of Gaya, representing the British Government, which always zealously took the side of the Mahant, ordered the Maha Bodhi Society to have the image removed from the Rest House, otherwise, the order said, it would be removed by the Government! However, good sense prevailed and the unworthy order was rescinded.
In 1897, the British Indian Association, to their eternal shame, represented to the Government that the presence of the Japanese image in the Rest House was offensive to the Hindus and asked the Government to have the image removed. Crass ignorance, superstition and blind prejudice could not go further! It is pleasant to note that the Government did not yield to the request. The image continued to be in the Rest House. Bhikshu Sumangala and Mr. Dharmapala also stayed in it.
Another flood of litigation came in the year 1906. The Mahant sued Sumangala and Dharmapala for a declaration that he was the sole owner of the Rest House, for ejection of the defendants from the building and for removal of the image therefrom. The Government was also joined as defendant in the suit.
The Sub-Judge decided the case in favour of the plaintiff Mahant. On appeal the High Court varied the decree and held that the Rest House, which was ‘partly’ built with money supplied by the Burmese, was in the possession of the plaintiff who had the control and superintendence thereof subject to the right to use it in the customary manner. But this question of the right was not decided on as it did not arise in that suit.
This stalemate continued till December 1924 when the Indian National Congress held its sitting at Belgaum. In that assembly all the Buddhist countries including those from Burma, Ceylon and Nepal, placed their case before the Congress. The result was that the All-India Congress Committee was ordered to deal with the matter. That Committee passed a resolution in which Dr. Rajendra Prasad was requested to go into the whole question and present his report by the end of January.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad, under powers given to him by the Congress Resolution, co-opted certain other notabilities in the investigation. A report was duly made to the Congress Committee. The report recommended inter alia that a committee of five Buddhists and five Hindus should be constituted and management and control of the temple should be left to it. It also suggested that legislation was a better method of dealing with the case.
In the year 1935 the then Burmese members of the Indian Legislative Assembly attempted to introduce a Bill in the House for better management and control of the temple. The attempt bore no fruit, as Burma was separated from India shortly after and the Burmese members ceased to be members of the Indian Assembly.
After the attainment of independence by India, the Government of Bihar undertook legislation with regard to the temple and had the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 passed. This Act provides for the constitution, by the Provincial Government, of a committee to be named the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee and entrusted with the management and control of the temple, the temple land and the properties appertaining thereto. The Committee, the Act provides, shall consist of a Chairman and eight members nominated by the Provincial Government all of whom shall be Indians and of whom four shall be Buddhists and four Hindus including the Mahant.
A Committee has been duly constituted according to the provisions of the Act, but unfortunately it has not yet been able to establish itself in a working position. The Mahant has instituted a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the Bihar Act is invalid and obtained an interim injunction from the Court restraining the Provincial Government from taking any action in enforcement of the Act. Thus, the fate of the temple and with it that of the Buddhists in regard to it are hanging in the balance.
This short account of the temple remains incomplete unless mention is made of the glorious part played by Sri Devapriya Valisinha, the present worthy General Secretary of the Maha Bodhi Society, in fighting for the cause of the Buddhists in this dispute for the management and control of the sacred place. Since the death of Anagarika Dharmapala in the year 1933, Sri Valisinha worthily took up his place and represented the Buddhist cause in the bitter controversy with an earnestness and a devotion which remind us of the unflagging zeal, great sacrifices and tenacity of purpose of his distinguished chief. Behind the attempt in the year 1935 of the Burmese members of the then Indian Assembly, referred to above, to introduce a Bill in the Legislature in respect of the temple, was the deft hand of Sri Valisinha without whose assistance the matter would never have received the attention of the Assembly. From the time he became Secretary of the Society right up to the passing of the Bodh-Gaya Temple Act by the Bihar Government, Sri Valisinha worked ceaselessly for a satisfactory settlement of the dispute.
Source: Maha Bodhi Society of India, Diamond Jubilee Souvenir – 1891=1951
