Mahabodhi attack India’s internal Affair? July 13, 2013, 6:29 pm by Bandu de Silva The reported refusal by the Indian High Commission in Colombo to receive a petition from the "Ravana Balakaya"and"Bodu Bala Sena" demonstrators in front of the High Commission is understandable as an exercise of a diplomatic mission’s discretion in the matter. In my days as Sri Lankan Ambassador in Paris, when I had to face six Tamil demonstrations in the week, one each day, I refused to receive their petitions despite the French Police asking me to receive them. That was because the demonstrators refused to identify their respective groups and gave bogus identities. But the reason given by the Indian High Commission that the attack on the Mahabodhi temple complex is an internal matter of India is a statement which requires close scrutiny. There may be a point there if one looks at it at face value as no Sri Lankan pilgrim suffered in the attack in contrast to the case of the attack on the Mahabodhi Vihara in Chennai. A Sri Lankan group of pilgrims had just left the premises when the explosions took place. So, it was a case of touch and go! We are not supporting the objectives and methods of Ravana Balakaya or Bodu Balasena as two groups and have our reservations about them. But a matter for deep reflection is if the Indian High Commission could get away saying that the Mahabodhi incident is an internal matter of India when the attack is a matter of grave concern not only of these two groups who went on demonstrating, but to all Sri Lankan Buddhists as much as to international Buddhists whose members do the pilgrimage to the holiest place of Buddhism. Consequently, the Indian High Commission’s stance on this is one that is of concern to all Sri Lankan Buddhists as well as international Buddhists. Mahabodhi temple is a place of pilgrimage to many people from India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, China and Japan and Nepal presently, but historically, people from many other parts including Bactria, Samarkand, Java , Korea, Tibet, Mongolia and others. It is not a place of pilgrimage confined only to Buddhists but also to Hindus alike as I found in April 1983 when I visited Buddha Gaya. The traveling companion I met at the Gaya station at 2.00 a.m.was a Hindu from Bangalore. He introduced himself to me as a man from the "South." When I said I was from Colombo, he said "Yes, you are one of us. We are in a foreign land. So let us stick together." There were no hotel rooms available and we slept on a bench on one of the platforms. My new friend warned me to keep a watch on my wallet and we slept on the two sides of the bench. Next morning he told me he was going to Mahabodhi and directed me to the bus stand. I met him at Mahabodhi later praying in front of the Bodhi tree. He said he was performing a vow on behalf of his wife who is childless. He also told me he was taking water from Neranjana lake for his wife. Later I found many women dipping in an algae covered pond behind the temple thinking it was Neranjana. That was a ritual in expectation of children, I was told. I have introduced this episode to show that Mahabodhi is held sacred by others as well and it has much to do with the ancient fertility cult. Even at Anuradhapura, Sri Maha Bodhi, village women in "Nade’ sing in chorus: "Uda Maluwe BodhisamiiPirimi Putek Dentay". The point I want to make is that Mahabodhi has acquired a significance beyond India’s state jurisdiction which the Indian High Commission seems to have overlooked when it claimed that the incident there was an internal matter of India. Millions of foreign pilgrims have visited Mahabodhi over a period of two millennia. There were even temples built by these countries in the Mahabodhi premises from ancient times as inscriptions there show. Sri Lanka too had an ancient monastery there. Sri Lanka’s connection with Mahabodhi goes beyond that. From the time of Emperor Asoka whose edict says he launched his pilgrimages since his visit to ‘Sambodhi’ (Eighth Rock Edict) is credited by all texts to have built the first grand temple there. His pilgrimage there gave a fillip to pilgrimages thereafter. Emperor Asoka sending a sapling from the Bodhi tree to Sri Lanka through his daughter Sanghamitta furthered the historical and religious link between Mahabodhi and Sri Lanka. Later when the original Mahabodhi died, Sir Cunningham planted a sapling from Sri Mahabodhi from Anuradhapura at the ancient site in Bihar. That ensured continuity. Later, the endeavours made by Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka to get Mahabodhi premises restored to the Buddhists which included litigation against Mahanta, who was in occupation of the premises is history now. Mahabodhi is very much a place where international Buddhists have a right both historically and otherwise transcending the state boundaries of India. When in international politics today, R2P has become a valid cause for intervention in sovereign states, and India herself seen interfering in domestic affairs of Sri Lanka, as it seems to be dong even today over the pressures brought on retaining the 13th Amendment, the Indian High Commission trying to foreclose the Mahabodhi attack as India’s internal affair, is a case of wrong emphasis. India should be seeking the friendship of other countries rather than taking what looks like an ‘imperial’ view. Sadly, the new High Commissioner seems to have started on the wrong foot. In the cultural field, concerning cultural properties removed by Western countries, UNESCO encountered the legal barrier arising from clams of cultural association of appreciation of these antiquities by the people of new repository countries as a right for continued possession. This is an analogy which cannot lose force in respect of a place of international pilgrimage and a World Heritage Site. That is a matter on which a person of standing like Dr. S. Gopal, the former Indian member of the UNESCO Executive Board with whom I associated closely, could have advised the Indian government. This shows that on cultural issues, which have gained international significance, mere claims of a state sovereign rights alone cannot apply. If people in all countries could protest over the destruction of the historic Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, how is it that there could not be protests over the attack on Mahabodhi which is sacred to Buddhists and others and has over two millennia of history of international interaction. As the Australian Bhikku VenDhammika wrote , it is the "Navel of the Earth". (Bodhi Mandala, or Bo –Meda). The Indian High Commission was definitely misdirected in trying to get away looking at Mahabodhi attack parochially as India’s own affair. That also covers up the lack of adequate protection provided to the Mahabodhi complex when, reportedly, intelligence had been received on the prospect of such an attack. What the Indian government should do is to at least accept responsibility for the omission and seek the cooperation of friendly countries rather than antagonize them. The VIPs running to Mahabodhi after the event cannot assuage the deep emotions caused among Buddhists all over. The truth is that despite all manifestations, Mahabodhi has not received due attention of the Indian government. When the World fellowship of Buddhists after its session held in Colombo passed a resolution concerning Buddha Gaya, it came to the Foreign Ministry for communication to the Indian government but the Ministry hesitated thinking it might be misunderstood. High Commissioner Dixit was making caustic remarks about Prime Minister, R. Premadasa’s plans to build a housing complex for the poor at Bodh Gaya. His remarks bordered on interference. Mahabodhi also draws pilgrims and India draws dollars. There are more Sri Lankans pilgrims visiting India than Indians coming here on business mostly. From that angle alone, Indian High Commission’s attitude is throwing a damper on pilgrimage to India. One can see how other countries react by issuing travel advisories. If the Indian High Commission did not want to receive the petition fromRavana Balakaya and Bodu Bala Sena for its own reasons, it could have said so openly without asserting this Indian superiority posture which does not go along with its claim as a world cultural force. Bandu de Silva Former Sri Lankan Ambassador to France / Former Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Posted on: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:03:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015