Buddhist leaders compared the Bodh Gaya agitation to past religious reform movements, saying every faith deserves the right to manage its own sacred sites.
BY PC Bureau
Gangtok, Sept 22 — The nationwide movement seeking the repeal of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 (BT Act) gathered fresh momentum on Sunday as hundreds of Buddhists marched in Gangtok, demanding full control of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara, the site where Lord Buddha attained enlightenment.
The rally, organised by the All India Buddhist Forum (AIBF), highlighted long-standing grievances over the 75-year-old law, which entrusts the temple’s management to an eight-member committee with equal representation of Hindus and Buddhists but reserves the chairmanship for the local District Magistrate, who is invariably a non-Buddhist.
“This structure is outdated and unconstitutional,” said Aakash Lama, General Secretary of the AIBF. “Bodh Gaya is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the holiest shrine for Buddhists worldwide. Yet Buddhists remain a minority in its management. The 1949 Act must be repealed.”
The AIBF has been campaigning for three years through hunger strikes, marches, signature drives and legal petitions. Since February, monks and activists have staged fasts in Bodh Gaya and other cities, while in August the Forum launched a nationwide torch rally from Nagpur. Over one lakh signatures have been collected, and petitions are pending before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the matter on October 30.
READ: UK, Canada, and Australia Recognize Palestinian State, Sending Shockwaves to Israel
Sunday’s protest in Gangtok carried special weight because of Sikkim’s Buddhist heritage. “Sikkim has a constitutional duty to back this demand,” said SD Tshering Lepcha, Advisor of the Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC). “Thousands of pilgrims from here travel to Bodh Gaya every year. It is only right that Buddhists manage their own holiest shrine.”
The movement is not confined to Sikkim. In recent months, similar demonstrations have taken place in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand and West Bengal. In July, Buddhist monks staged protests outside the Bihar Chief Minister’s residence in Patna, while hunger strikes were reported in Bodh Gaya itself. Leaders such as Union Minister Ramdas Athawale and Rashtriya Lok Samata Party chief Upendra Kushwaha have raised the demand in Parliament, urging the Centre to amend or repeal the Act.
The Bodh Gaya Temple Act was enacted in 1949, just two years after Independence, at a time when Bihar’s Buddhist population was negligible. It was intended to preserve Hindu-Buddhist cooperation at the shrine, where traditions from both faiths coexisted. But critics argue that the law now undermines the Buddhist community’s autonomy, especially given Bodh Gaya’s recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2002 and its central place in global Buddhism.
The protests have drawn comparisons with earlier religious reform movements in India, such as the Akali struggle in the 1920s that secured Sikh control over gurdwaras, or more recent agitations by Jains at Shikharji Hills. Activists say the Bodh Gaya issue is about the same principle: the right of a faith community to manage its own sacred spaces.
READ: Manipur: Tribal Body Calls 72-Hr Economic Blockade Over Assam Rifles Ambush
With the next Supreme Court hearing only weeks away, campaigners hope the legal battle will strengthen their cause. But regardless of the verdict, Sunday’s rally in Gangtok signalled that the demand for Buddhist stewardship of the Mahabodhi temple has become a national, and increasingly international, movement.
Background: What is the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949
- The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 (BT Act) governs the management of the Mahabodhi Temple complex. It established a Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) with members nominated by the state government. In the set up:
- The committee has members from both Buddhists & non-Buddhists (Hindus).
- The District Magistrate (always non-Buddhist) is the ex-officio chairperson.
- The Act was passed in 1949, in the early years of independent India, when the distribution of religious groups, political pressures etc. were different.
- Protesters argue that under this arrangement, even though the site is recognized globally (it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site), the Buddhist community does not have autonomous management. They say there are encroachments of non-Buddhist rituals, non-Buddhist priests in important roles, etc.
- The BT Act has been challenged legally, and also questioned politically. There have been hunger strikes, direct protest actions. The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in.
- One complicating factor is the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. Whether full Buddhist control counts as a “change” has legal implications.
Similar Movements & Comparable Protests
To understand the broader pattern, it is useful to compare this with other movements in India (and elsewhere) that seek religious communities’ control (or greater say) over sacred sites, or contest state or external control over religious institutions.
| Movement | What was being protested / demanded | Methods used | Outcome (or status) | Similarities with Bodh Gaya case / What differs |
| Akali Movement (1920s, Punjab, Sikh Gurdwaras) | Sikhs wanted management of their gurdwaras (temples) to be in hands of Sikh institutions (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), instead of British government-appointed mahants etc. | Non-violent protests, mass mobilization, legal and political negotiations. | Eventually led to the Sikh Gurdwara Bill, 1925, giving control to a Sikh trust (SGPC). | Very similar in that the community felt disenfranchised in managing their own holy sites. Difference: colonial context, and the formal political structure was different. |
| Shikharji Movement (Jharkhand, Jain community) | Protest against state interventions and development/tourism activity in sacred Shikharji Hill. Jains wanted it declared a “place of worship” and protected from commercialization. | Protests, organized rallies, fasting by monks, social mobilization across sects. | Partial success: in 2018 Jharkhand govt issued a memorandum declaring Shikharji Hill a place of worship. But debates about enforcement, commercialization, and infrastructure continue. | Similar in religious identity, sacred geography, concerns over pilgrim experience, non-religious interference. But Bodh Gaya is a globally significant pilgrimage site with international Buddhist interest. |
| Free Hindu Temples Movement | Various Hindu advocacy groups pushing to end state control of temples and place management entirely in hands of devotees/Religious/traditional institutions. | Public awareness campaigns, legal petitions, occasional protests; political advocacy. | Ongoing; in some states some progress but not always uniform. Legal, devotional, administrative hurdles. | Similar in claiming that current management structures are unjust, that religious community should have control. But differs in that Hindus are the majority in many states, often already have establishments/trusts; Bodh Gaya is a case where a minority community within the management still feels marginalized. |
| Protests / Monks hunger strike at Bodh Gaya itself | Buddhists have been doing exactly this: demanding repeal of BT Act; removing non-Buddhist control; hunger strikes since February; legal petition. | Hunger strikes, dharnas (sit-ins), signature campaigns, mobilizing public and political support. | So far the demands have not been granted, though protests have drawn national and international attention. Legal processes are ongoing. | This is the exact case under discussion; unique in combining international interest, heritage status, multiple religious communities, and legal complexity (including Places of Worship Act) |
Legal, Symbolic, Constitutional & Political Stakes
- Constitutional and rights claims: Protesters say the current structure violates principles of religious freedom, equality, and perhaps governance norms—why should non-Buddhists chair the committee of a Buddhist holy site?
- Heritage concerns: Because Mahabodhi is UNESCO-listed, and because of its global importance for Buddhism, how it is managed carries international implications: for pilgrimage, for preservation, rituals, tourism.
- Religious identity / symbolism: For many Buddhists, having managerial control isn’t just administrative; it’s about identity, safeguarding ritual purity (as they understand it), preventing interference or distortion of Buddhist rituals.
- Precedents: Other religious communities (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains) often manage their own institutions; so activists argue there’s a precedent.
- Political dimensions: Politicians are being drawn in. Parliament has seen speeches. Some ministers, like Ramdas Athawale, have pledged support and are organizing rallies
