top of page
Search

The Silent Siege of Bodhgaya: Buddhism’s Fight Against Brahmanical Dominance

Ancient temple with conical spires under an orange sky. Red flags hang on a string. The structure is detailed with carvings.
Illustration by Sanigdhaya Mahajan

In the shadow of the Bodhi tree, where Buddha attained enlightenment, a profound struggle continues to unfold. The Mahabodhi Temple, Buddhism’s holiest shrine, remains at the heart of a protracted and deeply symbolic conflict between Brahmanical control versus Buddhist reclamation of sacred heritage.


The present controversy, often simplified as a religious dispute, carries significant historical baggage. The temple's governance, dominated by Hindu priests and administrators, sparks fierce opposition from Buddhist monks worldwide who rightfully demand full control of their holiest site. The ongoing tension underscores India's persistent reluctance to acknowledge and rectify historical injustices against religious minorities.


At the heart of this conflict is the contested 1949 Bodhgaya Temple Act (BTA), that was put in place to end a long-standing conflict between Buddhists and Hindus, with a nuanced history going as far back as the 13th century CE. In the words of the legal document spelling out the details of the act, as published in the Bihar Gazette on 6th July 1949, it “make[s] provision for the better management of the Bodh Gaya Temple.” The same act has recently led to intense debate and protests in and around the religious site. The act states that an eight-member management committee, responsible for maintaining and overseeing the site, will consist of four Buddhists and four Hindus each, with Gaya’s district magistrate serving as an ex-officio chairperson and ninth committee member. The act originally required that the magistrate serve as ex-officio chairman only if they belong to the Hindu community. In 2013, this condition was amended, allowing a District Magistrate of any religion to hold the position (The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949). 


In the beginning of 2025, around 100 Buddhist monks protested the BTA under claims that it has historically been used by Hindu-majority management bodies to erode the control and rights of Buddhists over their religious site, a glaring example of which is the increase in Brahmanical iconography across the compound. The protesters also voiced their opposition to the Hindu-majority composition of the current board, since the district magistrate is a Hindu. Such protests are not a new occurrence. Buddhists across the world have mobilised constantly in the last three decades to draw attention to these issues.


Meanwhile, Hindu monks staunchly defend their perceived historical rights over the site. Swami Vivekananda Giri, the Hindu priest currently overseeing the Bodh Gaya Math, dismisses the protests as “politically motivated”, hinting at electoral ambitions tied to upcoming state legislative elections in Bihar (Mohanty, 2025). Giri argues that the Hindu side has been “generous in allowing four seats [out of nine] to Buddhists in the management committee,” and warns that repealing the Bodh Gaya Temple Act could backfire. “If you repeal the Act, then the temple will solely belong to the Hindu side because we owned it before the Act and the independence [of India]” says Giri. “When the Buddhists abandoned it after the invasion of Muslim rulers, we preserved and took care of the temple. Yet we never treated Buddhist visitors as ‘others’” (Sharma & Alam, 2025).


Recently, tensions rose when on February 27 2025, state police intervened late at night to disperse over two dozen Buddhist monks. These monks had been engaged in a hunger strike for 14 days within the temple compound, and the authorities compelled them to relocate their protest outside the temple's premises (Sharma & Alam, 2025). 


Akash Lama, the general secretary of the All India Buddhist Forum (AIBF), the organization spearheading the protest, expressed concerns, stating that the Bodhgaya Temple Act is increasingly being used as a tool to erode Buddhist rights. Lama emphasized the Buddhist community's legitimate claim to the temple, insisting it should be fully handed over to Buddhists. He also voiced deep dissatisfaction with both the government's inaction and the Supreme Court's failure to address their grievances.


Denial of History and Erasure of Identity


But the question remains: how did the very site where the Buddha attained enlightenment come under the control of Hindu monks? Monks who reimagined him, not as a radical thinker challenging Brahmanical orthodoxy but as an avatar of Vishnu, folded neatly into the Hindu pantheon? In this retelling, the Buddha is no longer a critic of caste or ritual, but a divine figure worthy of the same Brahmanical rites and customs he spent his life resisting. This appropriation not only dilutes his anti-Brahmanical stance, but also reclaims a site of resistance as one of ritual compliance.


It begins, like many sacred legends, beneath a tree. In 500 BCE, Siddhartha Gautama sat in meditation under the Bodhi tree in Magadha and emerged as the Buddha. The site of his enlightenment, Bodhgaya, became the holiest ground in Buddhism. Centuries later, Emperor Ashoka would enshrine this legacy by constructing the Mahabodhi Temple and making Buddhism the official creed of his empire. Custodianship of the temple remained with Buddhists through the Pala dynasty, as monks nurtured the site through worship and learning. But the 13th-century Turkic invasion led by Bakhtiar Khilji marked a turning point. As Buddhism declined across the region, the temple's status became vulnerable. By 1590, a Hindu ascetic named Ghamandi Giri had taken over the site, declared it a Hindu space and established the Bodh Gaya Math. For the next 300 years, a lineage of Hindu mahants would maintain control, transforming rituals, narratives and ultimately the temple’s identity itself (Panchal, 2023). 


This was no peaceful coexistence. It was a slow overwrite. Buddha was rebranded as a Hindu deity, meditation gave way to Brahmanical puja and Buddhist figures were marked with Hindu iconography. Resistance finally stirred in 1891 when Anagarika Dharmapala, a Sri Lankan reformer, ignited a global campaign for Buddhist restoration (Panchal, 2023). Yet colonial ambivalence and post-independence inertia prevailed. The 1949 Bodhgaya Temple Act institutionalized the imbalance. A governing committee was formed, but with a built-in Hindu majority and a government-appointed Hindu chair. 


Today, despite being the epicenter of Buddhism, Bodhgaya remains under a structure that systemically sidelines Buddhist agency. What was once a place of awakening has become a symbol of appropriation, quietly contested, stubbornly unresolved. The tree remains, but the ground beneath it is still being fought for.


Brahmanism’s Long Shadow


The appropriation of Bodhgaya is not an isolated event; it is part of a much older pattern. As Johannes Bronkhorst (2011) argues in his book Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism, Buddhism emerged in sharp opposition to the Brahmanical world into which it was born. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, the idea of a fixed social order and the sacrificial rituals central to Brahmanism. In its early centuries, Buddhism offered a radically different vision of the world, one grounded in ethical conduct, personal inquiry and liberation without dependence on priestly mediation.


But over time, as Bronkhorst notes, Brahmanism adapted to the ideological challenge that Buddhism posed. Instead of confronting Buddhism head-on, it absorbed aspects of it, its philosophy and cosmology, while reasserting its own authority through caste-based hierarchy and ritual supremacy. This historical process of co-optation blurred distinctions between the two traditions, enabling the eventual reabsorption of the Buddha into the Hindu fold as an avatar of Vishnu.


The case of the Mahabodhi Temple must be seen in this context. The temple’s transformation into a Hindu-managed site is not merely a bureaucratic oddity. It is a contemporary expression of this long-standing Brahmanical strategy. By controlling the narrative and ritual of Buddhism’s most sacred site, Brahmanical forces have reduced a site of anti-caste and anti-ritual resistance into one of symbolic assimilation. The temple’s current management structure does not just deny Buddhists their rightful autonomy. It enacts a quiet but continuous erasure of Buddhism’s historical defiance.


Amidst institutional failures, the public discourse has intensified.


Voices from the Ground


Public sentiment, especially in online forums, underscores how deeply this issue resonates. One commenter on Reddit succinctly captured the grievance:


“Bodh Gaya, the most sacred site in Buddhism,  and it isn’t actually governed by Buddhists… only four are Buddhists … the remaining members… all upper caste Hindus..hold the majority!” 


Another added a sharper frustration:


“The main reason for the protest is… in the committee for the temple, Buddhists are a minority, their decisions [are] undermined by the same people from whom they had to fight to get back basic rights for their holiest place.”


A third voice connected the dispute to broader patterns of religious appropriation:


“Any Hindu temple over there is a sign of encroachment and illegal occupation… Check the number of members … 5 are Brahmins, 4 are Buddhists… it’s all about money.” 


These comments reflect a widespread perception that the Mahabodhi Temple’s administration is structurally skewed against Buddhists, symbolizing exclusion instead of shared stewardship. Buddhists globally view the issue as emblematic of religious favoritism. Together, these public voices reveal a simmering discontent. Buddhists see their identity marginalized, their spiritual legacy co‑opted and their holy shrine managed not by worshippers but by outsiders. This growing online chorus adds urgency to the reclamation narrative, reminding readers that the Mahabodhi Temple dispute is not only fought in courtrooms or protest lines, but that it is also waged in the court of conscience.


Judicial Betrayal: Institutional Inertia Against Buddhist Claims


The Indian judiciary's handling of the Mahabodhi Temple controversy exemplifies institutional reluctance to confront historical injustices. Most recently, on June 30 2025, the Supreme Court rejected a plea by petitioner Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare seeking exclusive Buddhist control over the Mahabodhi Temple. Despite the petition highlighting constitutional violations, citing fundamental religious freedoms under Articles 19, 25 and 26, the Supreme Court dismissed it as non-maintainable and redirected the matter to the Patna High Court instead. This procedural deflection further entrenches a governance structure that systematically disadvantages Buddhists and sidelines their rightful stewardship (Thomas, 2025). 


Such judicial evasions intensify Buddhist frustrations, especially given their calls for urgency. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre underscored the immediate stakes involved, highlighting a report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that revealed alarming neglect. The sacred Bodhi tree itself is deteriorating due to chronic mismanagement and institutional indifference. Buddhists see the Supreme Court’s decision not merely as bureaucratic stalling but as active complicity in the jeopardisation of their holiest site (Thomas, 2025). As the legal system continues to defer meaningful action, the physical decay of Bodhgaya mirrors the erosion of Buddhist autonomy, leaving the community trapped in a protracted struggle for recognition, justice and the preservation of their religious heritage.


A Personal Plea: Breaking the Silence, Ending the Siege


As a Dalit Ambedkarite, my first encounter with the Mahabodhi Temple controversy came through the powerful documentary "In Buddha’s land, voices rise against the Brahmanical act" by Aishwarya AV-Raj (2025) for Maktoob Media. It was through her incisive storytelling that I first glimpsed the profound injustice embedded in the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949, an Act that has institutionalized Brahmanical dominance over Buddhism's most sacred space. Later, attending an online session featuring Akash Lama, General Secretary of the All India Buddhist Forum (AIBF), I heard firsthand harrowing accounts of police brutality, administrative apathy, and judicial neglect. Lama’s narrative of struggle and resilience reaffirmed for me a stark reality that this is not merely a bureaucratic dispute, it is a deliberate historical and ongoing marginalization of Buddhist voices and identity.


The silent siege of Bodhgaya encapsulates a larger battle against entrenched Brahmanical supremacy, a supremacy that has distorted and diminished the anti-caste and liberatory teachings of Buddha into compliant symbolism. For decades, Buddhists have pleaded for justice only to be met with institutional inertia and outright hostility. Today, the sacred Bodhi tree itself stands endangered, its decay mirroring the erosion of Buddhist dignity and autonomy in India. Yet the courts and administration remain indifferent, complicit even, in perpetuating this profound betrayal.


This cannot continue. The Mahabodhi Temple's struggle is not isolated. It is emblematic of broader systems of caste dominance and religious erasure. As heirs of Ambedkar, our fight for the Mahabodhi Temple is not just a fight for religious rights. It is a fight against the Brahmanical hegemony that seeks to erase our history, our identity and our dignity. We must break this silence, end this siege and reclaim Bodhgaya not merely as a historical relic but as a living, breathing testament to Buddhist principles of equality and liberation. Only then can we truly honor the legacy of Buddha, Ambedkar and every voice silenced by Brahmanical dominance.




Vaishnavi Manju Pal (she/they) holds a Distinction in Gender Studies from SOAS, University of London, where their research focused on 'Dalit Masculinities and Alternate Politics of Radical Dalit Assertion.' They are a lecturer and module leader in Social Sciences, based in London.


A columnist at Political Pandora, they write 'Frames of Reference,' a column that examines socio-political realities through multiple theoretical lenses, with a particular focus on the Indian subcontinent. Their work engages with the lived experiences of its diverse populations, aiming to bridge the gap between academia and public discourse through accessible yet critically rigorous cultural and political analysis.


A firm believer in the power of marginalized voices, Vaishnavi has served as President of the SOAS Ambedkar Society. They are committed to contributing to radical discourse—one class, one student, one paper, and one revolution at a time.



Disclaimer


Any facts, views or opinions are not intended to malign, criticise and/or disrespect any religion, group, club, organisation, company, or individual.

This article published on this website is solely representative of the author. Neither the editorial staff nor the organisation (Political Pandora) are responsible for the content.


All illustrations in this piece are original works created exclusively by the Design Department of Political Pandora.


These illustrations are protected and are not available for replication, reproduction, or redistribution in any form without explicit written consent from Political Pandora. Unauthorized use, including but not limited to copying, modifying, or redistributing, is strictly prohibited.


Photographs in this particular article are taken from external sources and are not a property of Political Pandora. The use of these images are not meant for commercial purposes.


While we strive to present only reliable and accurate information, should you believe that any information present is incorrect or needs to be edited, please feel free to contact us.



References: 



Keywords: Bodhgaya Temple Conflict, Mahabodhi Temple Dispute, Buddhist Control Of Bodhgaya, Hindu Brahmin Dominance, Bodhgaya Temple Act 1949, Supreme Court Buddhist Petition, Bodhgaya Protest 2025, Bodhi Tree Preservation, Buddhist Rights In India, Ambedkarite Buddhist Movement, History Of Bodhgaya Temple, Hindu Buddhist Tensions India, Dalit Buddhist Struggle, Global Buddhist Solidarity, Brahmanism And Buddhism

Comments

Join the 
Pandora Community

Join Political Pandora! We offer exciting opportunities for passionate youth.

 

Publish your work on a global platform with an engaged audience, often cited in academic research. Your voice matters—be part of the conversation!

bottom of page