A civilisation that does not fight for its roots is bound to get doomed. The continuous struggle of Hindu-Indian civilisation is the reason that it still remains the largest and the oldest living civilisation. As Ram Janmabhoomi Temple stands as the testament of civilisational resurrection, Hindus are now trying to reclaim all their temples that fell victim of foreign Islamic invasion. In line with that, the battle has started over the Harihar Temple in Sambhal where Babur-illegally built a structure which the Muslim side calls Shahi Jama Masjid.
Following the violent reaction from Islamists and their backers, the usual suspects have kicked off a shrill narrative. They claim that the way Hindus are finding temples beneath the mosques, a similar pattern would create trouble for Hindus if the Buddhist sites were to be found.
For instance, Ajit Anjum, a well-known biased journalist, posted on X, “If many such temples are excavated, remains of symbols of Buddhism will also be found. The appearance of the idols of Lord Buddha has also been changed at many places. What will happen if there is a demand to search for symbols of Buddhism in the courtyards of temples?”
He further asked, “Will the country be run by law and constitution or by the extremist agenda of Hindutva people?”
If his statement rings the bell, it is actually the statement of Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya. He once iterated the similar “concern”. But since Anjum calls himself a journalist, his argument should have been at par with a hate mongering divisive politician.
Similarly, SP Chief Akhilesh Yadav also peddled a similar narrative albeit with misleading claims based on a several year old incident. Incidentally, the news report enclosed in his post is that of India Today published way back in 2006.
Many Hindu temples converted to Buddhist temples
Nonetheless, the argument is half baked and far away from reality. To start with, it is a well-established fact that Hinduism is the predecessor of Buddhism. So, if we talk about the conversion of Buddhist temples into Hindu temples, it is an undeniable fact that Hindu sites were also converted to Buddhist monasteries or places of worship.
To start with, the world’s largest temple Angkor Wat was actually a Hindu temple but was converted by King Jayavarman VII during his reign (1181–1220 AD). The prime reason for this was Angkor being sacked by Cham people of modern day Vietnam. Jayavarman believed that Hindu gods had failed him. Later, the temple saw gradual conversion.
But we rarely see a clarion call from Hindus to get the temple back to its original form. The viable reason for this is the civilisational confluence between both the religions. Nevertheless, let’s talk about the conversion of Hindu temples during the time when Buddhism was gaining ground.
How Hindu worship sites were converted during the time of the spread of Buddhism?
At the outset, the feature of Buddhism was asceticism, which is one small part of large Hindu philosophy. Now, since ancient asceticism preached about renunciation, which obviously meant detachment from the materialistic world, how could the word of Buddhism be spread. So, in Buddhism, the monks and nuns who followed asceticism were allowed to visit families’ houses on invitation. This made the establishment of monasteries and samghas in populous areas a key feature of Buddhism.
Now, since the common people in forests, tribal areas had their own Hindu deity called Yakshas, their sacred places were converted to Buddhist sites. This is precisely described in Samuel Geoffrey’s ‘The origins of yoga and tantra. Indic religions to the thirteenth century’ and is referred to by Karam Tez Singh Sarao in his book ‘The History of Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya’.
KTS Sarao states that either these Yakshas places with sacred trees were either converted or were worshipped in sharing and Mahabodhi Tree is a perfect example of that.
As a matter of fact, the site remained in control of Buddhists and Brahmins for most of time until the Turks, (Muslim invaders) destroyed the temple towards the end of 12th Century. Moreover, after decimation of the site, it was Hindu Shaivaite Sanyasis who took charge of the temple four centuries later and then the foreign visitors started trickling down at the place. So it is the fact that Ashoka built the temple there but its existence is not only merely credited to that.
Notably, Mahabodhi Temple is the most sacred site for Buddhists, but from before that Gaya has been a holy place in Hinduism for ‘Pinddan’. Both the religions have flourished there simultaneously.
Shun Ambedkarite view of Buddhism, go with original
Now, the Leftist “intellectuals” might argue that Hindus deliberately associate themselves with Buddhism by claiming that Bhagwan Buddha was the incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu. This is actually a typical Ambedkarite view of Buddhism which is by essence anti-Hinduism. First of all, it is documented history that the temple was worshipped by both religions and was invaded by Turks.
Moreover, leave the Ambedkarite Buddhism aside for a moment, the oldest Buddhist faction Theravada Buddhism, which is also considered to following the original teachings of Buddha believe their roots to have emanated from Hinduism, a sentiment that most often Hindus echo when talking about the Buddha and his teachings. In fact they believe Bhagwan Ram as a Bodhisattva and Bhagwan Buddha was born as Ram in one of his earlier lives. The Theravadins have their own Ramayana known as ‘Dasaratha Jataka‘.
So basically, before peddling a half baked theory, the leftist “intellectuals” should understand that the Ambedkarite view of Buddhism and its alienation with Hinduism is actually a misguided concept which was politically charged and is far from reality.
So, if there are Buddhist sites converted into Hindu ones, there are also Hindu sites which got converted to Buddhist places of worship and to put it correctly, the number of which can not even be counted. But still, we do not see Buddhists claiming Hindu temples or the other way around because essentially, they are the part of one umbrella. Their teachings have emanated from one origin. Moreover, the Buddhists who follow the religion from inception or are not associated with Ambedkarite Buddhism have no animosity with Hinduism. In fact, it is Hinduism, with which they feel a sense of oneness.
If one wants to have an experience, they must recall how the Dalai Lama was welcomed in Vrindavan and his feets were washed by Vaishanvas by their hands at Raman Reti. On the contrary, one must also talk to Ambedkarite Buddhist, who see Buddhism as merely a tool for political vengeance.
Having said that, leftist intellectuals must see the reality that when resurrection of Hindu temples is talked about in the scope of Islamic invasion of holy places, it is not only a religious issue. In fact it is less of a religious issue and more of a civilisational matter. While in Buddhist and Hindu temples, whatever is the history, it is intra-civilisation and a Buddhist site is as sacred for Hindus as some temples as Bhagwan Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu. To conclude, neither the genuine followers of Buddhism nor the genuine followers of Hinduism will ever feel an urge to reclaim the opposite sites.