Published Paper Details:

The Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949, enacted by the Bihar government, established the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) to oversee the administration of the Mahabodhi Temple complex in Bodh Gaya, a site of immense significance as the place where Siddhartha Gautama attained enlightenment. The Act stipulates that the BTMC comprises eight members: four Buddhists and four Hindus, with the Gaya District Magistrate serving as the ex-officio chairperson. Notably, if the District Magistrate is not a Hindu, the government is mandated to appoint a Hindu as the chairperson. Over the years, this composition has been a focal point of contention. Buddhist communities and organizations have argued that the Act's provisions disproportionately favor non-Buddhists, thereby undermining the autonomy of Buddhists in managing one of their most sacred sites. They assert that the equal representation of Hindus and Buddhists, coupled with the stipulation regarding the chairperson's religious affiliation, does not reflect the temple's intrinsic Buddhist heritage. This sentiment has led to calls for either amending or repealing the Act to ensure that Buddhists have predominant control over the temple's administration. In response to these concerns, the Bihar government introduced the Bodh Gaya Temple (Amendment) Bill in 2013. This amendment allowed for a non-Hindu District Magistrate to serve as the chairperson of the BTMC, thereby removing the previous requirement that mandated a Hindu chairperson in such scenarios. The government's rationale was rooted in upholding the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar emphasized that the District Magistrate, as a government representative, embodies the state's secular credentials. Despite this amendment, many Buddhist leaders and organizations remain dissatisfied. They argue that the core issue--the equal representation of Hindus and Buddhists on the BTMC--persists, and that Buddhists should have a majority stake in the management of their sacred site. For instance, in November 2024, the Federation of Barua Buddhist Welfare Association of Assam organized a general meeting to demand the repeal of the BTMC Act. They contended that the Act, in its current form, does not adequately represent the interests of the Buddhist community and called for the temple's management to be entrusted solely to Buddhists. Similarly, the All India Buddhist Forum (AIBF) submitted a memorandum in June 2023, urging the repeal of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. They highlighted that the Act's provisions violate the rights and dignity of millions of Buddhists worldwide by denying them rightful autonomy over the management and preservation of their religious heritage. The AIBF pointed out that, under the Act, the BTMC consists of nine members, only four of whom are Buddhists, with the remaining members, including the District Magistrate as chairperson, being non-Buddhists. This structure, they argue, creates an imbalanced power dynamic that risks subordinating the interests and spiritual values of the Buddhist community. In conclusion, while the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949 was initially instituted to oversee the administration of the Mahabodhi Temple complex, its provisions have been a source of ongoing debate and dissatisfaction among Buddhist communities. Despite amendments aimed at addressing some concerns, calls for repealing or further amending the Act continue, with advocates seeking greater autonomy and representation for Buddhists in managing their sacred heritag