The Bihar government has decided that the pilgrim city of Gaya will now be officially called Gaya ji. The announcement was made after a cabinet meeting in Patna. Ironically, the same government has remained silent on the legitimate demand from the global Buddhist community to hand over the historic Mahabodhi Vihar Temple to them.
Buddhists have been holding a silent protest since February 12, 2025, in Gaya. Yet, this has gone largely unnoticed by both the media and political parties. While a few political leaders raised the issue in the Bihar Assembly, none of the top-ranking leaders from major parties have commented on it.
On Buddha Purnima, Governor Arif Mohammad Khan visited the holy shrine and spoke of Buddha’s greatness but remained silent on the temple issue. Buddhist activists accused the Governor of offering archana to Lord Shiva, ignoring Buddhist sentiments. Despite addressing an event on Buddha's legacy, the Governor failed to acknowledge that Buddhists had been sitting in protest for over two months, demanding a change in the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee.
In the lead-up to Buddha Purnima, a continuous dharna was held at the site, with Buddhists—particularly from Maharashtra—gathering in large numbers. Bahujan Vikas Aghadi leader Prakash Ambedkar visited and expressed strong solidarity with the movement. BSP leader Ms. Mayawati also expressed support, though she has not yet visited Bodh Gaya. Apart from these two, no other prominent leaders from recognized parties have spoken out. RJD, the main opposition party in Bihar, has barely addressed the issue. PDA leader Akhilesh Yadav and his party have remained silent. Rahul Gandhi, despite multiple visits to Bihar and frequent references to Dalit issues, has not made a single statement regarding the Mahabodhi Temple. Ironically, all these leaders wished people on Buddha Purnima but remained conspicuously silent on this critical issue.
There has been minimal coverage in mainstream newspapers and electronic media—only a few YouTubers and Ambedkarite platforms have consistently written about the protests. However, even these reports often lack deep investigation or reflection. Most of the coverage highlights the participation of leaders and cadres from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Naturally, there is an ideological divide: for millions of Dalits in India, the path to Buddhism leads through Babasaheb Ambedkar, while for many Buddhists in regions like Ladakh, Darjeeling, Himachal Pradesh, or Uttar Pradesh, Buddhism does not carry the same political meaning. For Ambedkarites, it represents a liberation theology. This ideological contradiction has surfaced here as well, and blame games have begun.
A large gathering was expected on Buddha Purnima Day, but apart from dedicated Buddhists from Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, the crowd was underwhelming. Until recently, one Akash Lama led what was termed a ‘non-political’ movement, but he suddenly announced the suspension of the dharna on Buddha Purnima, prompting accusations of collusion with the RSS and government. At that point, Bhante Vinaya Acharya, who questioned both the suspension and the stagnation of the movement, and advocated for a stronger campaign to reclaim the holy site, reportedly went missing overnight. It is suspected that he was arrested, but no official information is available about his whereabouts. The Bihar media has also remained silent, and there’s little from the political class. As a result, the current status of the movement and leadership remains unclear, and there is no unified Buddhist stance.
A video that went viral recently shows a local vendor responding “Jai Shri Ram” to someone shouting “Jai Bhim,” sparking an altercation over why non-Buddhists or anti-Buddhists are present at the Mahabodhi Vihar. While Buddhists from Maharashtra may find this offensive, the uncomfortable truth is that the movement might have been more successful had it taken place in Maharashtra or if there were a significant local Buddhist population in Bodh Gaya. Despite rhetoric from PDA or Bahujan groups, most Bahujan communities still suffer from internal caste divisions. The only unifying factor is discrimination by Brahmanical forces. Yet, a cohesive movement to eradicate Brahmanism from within these communities has not emerged. Some intellectuals claim that talking about intra-caste issues is a distraction, arguing only Brahmins are the exploiters. However, the reality is that most people living around Mahabodhi Vihar belong to Dalit-Bahujan communities, yet there is insufficient local support to challenge the government politically.
Leaders like Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi have remained completely silent. The issue has clearly not resonated with the emotions and sentiments of the local Bahujan masses—an undeniable failure. Bihar’s social justice politics primarily centers around agrarian OBCs who still adhere to Brahmanical traditions. Communities like the Dusadhs and Charmakars maintain cultural practices closely tied to Brahmanism, unlike the Mahars in Maharashtra or Jatavs and Chamars in Uttar Pradesh who have more actively embraced Buddhism.
Historically, the Mahabodhi Mahavihara issue was not initiated by locals. It was first internationalized by Sri Lankan Bhikkhu Anagarika Dharmapala. The Buddhist movement in India gained grassroots traction only after Babasaheb Ambedkar revived it. Unfortunately, after his Mahaparinirvana, the movement remained largely confined to Maharashtra and parts of Western Uttar Pradesh. It saw some revival when Ms. Mayawati, as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, promoted Buddhism by establishing districts like Kushinagar, Mahamayanagar, and Panchsheel Nagar.
Globally, the Buddhist community has long questioned why its holiest shrine is not under Buddhist management. There is no historical dispute about the Mahabodhi Mahavihara’s Buddhist origins. Yet, major political players have maintained a deafening silence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi often references Buddha and Buddhism during foreign visits as symbols of India’s cultural heritage, but he has also been silent on this issue. The Bihar government has not addressed it either.
Many Ambedkarites are pinning their hopes on Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai. But realistically, only the Prime Minister and influential Hindu organizations have the power to resolve the issue peacefully—by handing over the management of the Bodh Gaya Temple to Buddhists. Hindu organizations have often appealed to Muslims to relinquish religious sites they claim were originally Hindu, as seen in the Ayodhya Ram Temple case. The Supreme Court’s judgment in that matter emphasized honoring Hindu sentiments over strict adherence to historical or constitutional facts. If such an approach was possible for Ayodhya, why can’t the same respect be extended to Buddhists? The court and political leadership have yet to speak out. Political parties tend to prioritize issues that offer electoral gain—hence, groups like the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi are vocal, while local parties in Bihar remain quiet due to the lack of grassroots mobilization.
Neither Lalu Yadav nor Chirag Paswan has spoken on the matter. Rahul Gandhi, vocal on Dalit and EBC issues, remained silent even during a recent visit to Darbhanga, where he addressed SC students at the Ambedkar Hostel and watched the film Phule with activists and academics in Patna. He said nothing about the Buddhists’ demands at Bodh Gaya.
This clearly indicates that for the political class, an issue only becomes important when it garners mass support. Locally, there is little support in and around Bodh Gaya; most of the backing comes from outside Bihar. The Buddhist movement initiated by Ambedkar has yet to penetrate diverse Dalit communities across India. While Bahujan parties pay tribute to Lord Buddha symbolically, they avoid addressing the issue substantively. Moreover, within the Dalit community, primarily the Mahars and Jatavs have embraced Buddhism. Most OBCs do not feel connected to the issue, with a few exceptions too marginal to influence the majority.
Finally, there is a cultural difference between non-Ambedkarite Buddhists—who prefer diplomatic engagement with the government—and Ambedkarite Buddhists, for whom critiquing Brahmanism is central. Leadership issues also plague the movement. The absence of figures like Bhadant Nagarjun Surai Sasai, who once championed this cause, is deeply felt. Though still active in Maharashtra, age has limited his involvement.
Now, this issue can be resolved by two key actors:
1. The Supreme Court, which could take suo motu cognizance and direct the Bihar government accordingly.
2. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has consistently used Buddhism as a tool of India’s soft power on the global stage.
Modi frequently attends Buddhist festivals and lauds Buddhism in global forums. Buddha is one of India’s greatest global influencers, and the government is certainly aware of that. It could convene an all-party meeting and resolve the matter. This is not an intractable issue. Unlike Ayodhya, the dispute is not about origin or historicity, but purely about rightful management—which clearly belongs to the Buddhists.
Whether or not there is a large-scale political movement, the Government of India must acknowledge and address this matter. It should support the Bihar government in resolving it. Buddha and Buddhism are India’s greatest soft power symbols. If the government shows intent, it can resolve this issue peacefully and democratically. It’s time for India to act—and demonstrate to the world how it addresses internal challenges with wisdom and inclusivity.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments