WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE DECISIONS ABOUT MAHABODHI TEMPLE

 

 

READ THE DECISIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND FIND OUT BY YOUR SELF WHO IS DOING WHAT FOR MAHABODHI TEMPLE AND DISRESPECTED BUDDHA

REPORT 2003 TO 2013

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1056/documents/

Current conservation issues

At the time of inscription of this property on the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee noted with concern the information from ICOMOS regarding intense pressure from tourism development and pilgrimage activities on-site. The Committee recommended that the Indian authorities develop a comprehensive management plan to ensure the conservation of the heritage values of the property, including provisions for regular monitoring and adequate mechanisms to control the impact of tourism and pilgrimage activities within and surrounding the property.

Since inscription on the World Heritage List, the Centre has received information from local NGOs and religious groups concerning vandalism and theft on site. Moreover, the Centre has been informed of a number of court cases that reflect some conflictual relationships between the religious groups using the property and occasionally the local communities, which reportedly resulted in fires and riots.

Reportedly, some groups have proposed that the management of the property be placed into the hands of Buddhist religious groups instead of the current local government authority. 

27COM7B.46

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the state of conservation of the property for the first time since its inscription on the World Heritage List in 2002,;
2. Recalling the concern at the time of inscription regarding the tourism and pilgrimage pressures facing the property,;
3. While noting that the absence of a functioning comprehensive management plan has persisted in spite of the Committee’s recommendation at the time of inscription of the property for the development of such plan (26 COM 23.16), expresses its appreciation to the State Party for commencing the elaboration of such a plan,;
4. Expresses concern over the continuing tensions and occasional conflicts between local stakeholders, in particular the religious groups who wish to use this important religiousWorld Heritage property;
5. Recognizing the associated heritage significance of the surrounding areas of the Mahabodhi Temple which are intrinsically linked to the enlightenment of Buddha, but which are not within the core nor the buffer zone of the existing World Heritage property,;
6. Invites the State Party to enlarge the World Heritage protected area to ensure that the protective core and buffer zones are meaningful and effective for the conservation of the values of the property;
7. Requests the State Party to complete the elaboration of a comprehensive management plan which adequately integrates:

(a) Local community and stakeholders’ dialogue and co-operation,

(b) Protection, conservation and preservation of the heritage value and assets of this sacred property,

(c) Control of development activities within and surrounding the property related to tourism and pilgrimage activities;

8. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 the completed comprehensive management plan in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/629

Committee Decisions

27 COM 7B.46

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (India)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined the state of conservation of the property for the first time since its inscription on the World Heritage List in 2002,;
2.  Recalling the concern at the time of inscription regarding the tourism and pilgrimage pressures facing the property,;
3.  While noting that the absence of a functioning comprehensive management plan has persisted in spite of the Committee’s recommendation at the time of inscription of the property for the development of such plan (26 COM 23.16), expresses its appreciation to the State Party for commencing the elaboration of such a plan,;
4.  Expresses concern over the continuing tensions and occasional conflicts between local stakeholders, in particular the religious groups who wish to use this important religiousWorld Heritage property;
5.  Recognizing the associated heritage significance of the surrounding areas of the Mahabodhi Temple which are intrinsically linked to the enlightenment of Buddha, but which are not within the core nor the buffer zone of the existing World Heritage property,;
6.  Invites the State Party to enlarge the World Heritage protected area to ensure that the protective core and buffer zones are meaningful and effective for the conservation of the values of the property;
7.  Requests the State Party to complete the elaboration of a comprehensive management plan which adequately integrates:

(a) Local community and stakeholders’ dialogue and co-operation,

(b) Protection, conservation and preservation of the heritage value and assets of this sacred property,

(c) Control of development activities within and surrounding the property related to tourism and pilgrimage activities;

8.  Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 the completed comprehensive management plan in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.

 

REPORT 2004 … http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1450

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Current conservation issues

As requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session in 2003, a management document was submitted to the Secretariat on 2 February 2004. As well as covering the local stakeholders’ dialogues and co-operation, it raises issues concerning the protection of the significant sacred values of this property, and addresses developmentpressures within and surrounding the property due to tourism and pilgrimage-related activities, including vandalism and theft.

ICCROM and ICOMOS have submitted a joint report, which commends the State Party for the useful information gathered together in the preparation of the report and for the innovative approach embodied in efforts to balance development and conservation. It draws attention, however, to a number of points which must be addressed to ensure complete, long term protection of the World Heritage values of the property. Some of the key technical, conceptual and managerial issues are highlighted below:

(a)     Technical issues:

(i)       The inscribed World Heritage property is the Mahabodhi Temple complex. Whilst the attention to Bodhgaya, given its critical role in providing the setting for Mahabodhi, is important, the management document must address head-on the problems of looking after Mahabodhi and treat Bodhgaya in that context.

(ii)     The management document is not significance driven. The statement of significance, is actually a descriptive summary of the inscription criteria recognised by the Committee and consequently an understanding of significance is not used to root or ground decisions concerning the property.

(iii)    The management document does not build on the nomination dossier submitted by the State Party. The core area and buffer zone defined for the Bodhgaya territory differ substantially from the zones originally defined in the nomination dossier submitted by the State Party for inscription of the property on the World Heritage List. Expansion of the core zone and the changes proposed to strengthen the buffer zone must be clearly indicated and brought to the attention of the Committee for approval.

(b)     Conceptual issues:

Bodhgaya as a centre of pilgrimage: The vision statement emphasises the need to make Bodhgaya a city preaching the doctrine of Buddhism, but the deeply rooted significance of the property as a place of pilgrimage has been overlooked. The nomination dossier, where this particular value should have been recognised only refers to tangible remains.  Pilgrimage removes many barriers and reflects harmony among different religious groups and the fact that Buddha himself advocated pilgrimages to the Bodhgaya has been influential in the survival of the property to the present day.  Paradoxically, in the body of the report, pilgrims are considered as important stakeholders with acknowledged needs.

(c)     Managerial issues:

(i)       Focus on Mahabodhi:  The report reads as if it were a planning document prepared primarily for the long-term treatment and development of Bodhgaya as a centre for Buddhist worship, paying occasional attention to Mahabodhi as a side issue within a larger project. It is the Mahabodhi Temple Complex itself, and not Bodhgaya, which should have a primary place in the management plan.

(ii)    Treatment of Bodhgaya:  If the State Party wishes to extend the Mahabodhi property to include Bodhgaya, then this management document should propose a strategy to protect the specific heritage values of Bodhgaya to bring to the attention of the Committee.

(iii)    Going beyond intentions:  The report is essentially a statement of good intentions.  If these are not grounded in a permanent legal framework and supported by a related management structure identifying the necessary resources for sustainable management, an adequate commitment to the protection of the property cannot be ensured. 

(iv)   Role of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI):  Currently the ASI does not have any legal control over decisions affecting the World Heritage property so it would be useful to establish legislation to designate the Mahabodhi Temple Complex a protected monument.  The ASI should also provide the national outlook for the overall conservation programme working as shared partners in conservation with the other institutions concerned and the civil society.

(v)     Treatment of the buffer zone:  There are some contradictions evident in the management documen, which need to be resolved. For example, the document prohibits insensitive development, whilst accepting the recent introduction of many structures.

(vi)   Emphasis on process: The management plan should clarify the long-term process to be used when making decisions about the property thus ensuring the survival of the recognized heritage values.

(vii)  Research Strategy: Although there is a reference to excavation and conservation, no attempt has been made to develop an overall research strategy. This is a property in which an important event took place in the 6th century BC and evolved over 2500 years. There is a need to expand knowledge of this property. Furthermore, a comprehensive research strategy should be included as an essential part of the management.

(viii)      Management Structure: Empowering and restructuring individual institutions is a positive approach but it is essential for an organisation with a powerful leadership to be created, in order to co-ordinate line agencies and capture the aspirations of civil society for the site management.

(ix)    Monitoring: Although there are some aspects of monitoring mentioned under maintenance, it is important to develop a chapter on monitoring. This will help for reporting purposes as required by the World Heritage Committee’s Periodic Reporting process. 

In conclusion, ICOMOS and ICCROM strongly recommend that the plan be subject to peer review by Indian conservation professionals and to the comments made above in this report and revised accordingly before final adoption for implementation. We would also draw the attention of the State Party to the need to demonstrate that a realistic and practical implementation strategy will actually be implemented with appropriate legal, financial and institutional support and within a management framework adequate to protect the heritage values of the property.

The Secretariat has been informed of several court cases reflecting some conflicting relationships between religious groups and local communities. In order to limit the impact of intense tourism and pilgrimage-related activities, regular monitoring and adequate conservation mechanisms need to be put in place. All such measures should be worked out with the Mahabodhi Temple Trust, in close co-operation with the State Government of Bihar, who deal with tourism and infrastructure, and with the wider involvement of the Central Government (Archaeological Survey of India) with its national outlook and technical expertise in heritage conservation.

At the Dedication Ceremony (dedicating the Mahabodhi Temple to all the Buddhists in the world) on 19 February 2004, the Minister of Culture and Tourism of the Government of India pledged Central Government support for infrastructure improvements in and around Bodhgaya (i.e. opening the airport to international flights) and for the creation of a meditation park for pilgrims to meditate in a calm environment.

Decision

28COM15B.57

The World Heritage Committee, 1. Recalling the concern at the time of inscription regarding the tourism and pilgrimage pressures facing the property, 2. Congratulates the State Party for initiating efforts to elaborate a comprehensive document relevant to the long-term conservation and management of the property; 3. Requests the State Party to pursue its efforts towards the finalisation of the current management plan for peer review by the Indian conservation professionals and taking into account the suggestions made by the Advisory Bodies in the joint ICCROM-ICOMOS paper, in particular focussing on: a) integrating a heritage values-sensitive approach to management, b) basing the document on protection of the inscribed Mahabodhi World heritage property, c) developing a realistic implementation strategy, d) including a peer review process within development of the plan; 4. Encourages the State Party to identify legal mechanisms to designate the Mahabodhi Temple Complex as a protected monument, to ensure maintenance of the buffer zone proposed by the State Part for Mahabodhi at the time of inscription, and to consider the possible extension of the core zone to include the Bodhgaya property; 5. Invites the State Party to organise a series of stakeholders’ interventions in the process of improving and finalising the management plan, and to submit a request for Technical Co-operation Assistance for this purpose; 6. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to organise a first joint mission in order to assess the steps taken by the State Party to protect the World Heritage values of the property, and to submit its report for examination by the 29th session of the Committee in 2005.

 

REPORT 2005 … http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1312

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Current conservation issues ~

Following the request of the 28th session of the Committee (Suzhou, 2004), a joint mission was undertaken by ICOMOSand WHC from 21 to 27 April 2005 in order to assess the steps taken by the State Party to protect the World Heritage values of the property. 

The joint ICOMOS/WHC mission examined a number of approaches for the management of this property.  These included the approach developed by HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Authority) in consultation with the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) over the last 18 months and reflected in the documents made available to the mission, “Mahabodhi Temple Complex World Heritage Property: Site Management Plan” (both the document itself and a hard copy of the accompanying power point presentation), “Heritage Led Perspective Development Plan for Bodhgaya, Vision 2001-2031: The Plan ”, and “Heritage Led Perspective Development Plan for Bodhgaya, Vision 2001-2031: The Work Studies”.  An alternative approach based on the protection of the World Heritage values of the property was also presented by a heritage conservation expert.  Following discussions in Delhi and Bodhgaya as well as an on-site visit to the property and its surroundings, the mission made the following observations:

a) Progress made in refining the Site Management Plan prepared by HUDCO:

The HUDCO Site Management plan (April 2005) constitutes an admirable attempt to synthesize analysis around key development and conservation issues and to present recommendations for planning action to strengthen care of the property and adjoining buffer zones.  However, as noted by the authors of the report, at this stage the Site Management Plan remains an advisory document containing only guideline suggestions for improvement.  The mission also noted substantial weaknesses in the document particularly in the definition and elaboration of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, and that while there are many useful recommendations for enhanced control in the buffer zone of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex, until these are adopted and incorporated in the Development Plan proposed for Bodhgaya, these recommendations are not yet in force.  

ICOMOS recommends that work on the Site Management Plan be suspended until such time as all necessary conditions for implementation of the plan are in place.

b) Need to establish an appropriate management mechanism:

The final part of the Site Management Plan document focuses on the “institutional mechanism for plan implementation”.  Recognizing that the authority of the BTMC (Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee), while established statutorily in 1949, is limited to the Mahabodhi Temple Complex area, and that control of the proposed buffer zone can only be achieved with commitment of adjacent landowners, the report explores various integrated management mechanisms, from strengthening of the BTMC to creation of a new World Heritage management authority. 

c) Need for an appropriate legal protection framework at both national and state levels to support the Site Management Plan:

While management of a World Heritage property normally calls for the highest possible protection at national level, in the present case the ASI feels strongly that national designation involving “monument protection” would be counterproductive, given the importance of the property as living religious heritage.  Equally, the State Government of Bihar believes that with the BTMC playing a statutory role, there is no need for State level notification.  The State Government is however prepared to extend its development control authority over the buffer zone through measures proposed in the Bodhgaya Development Plan. 

d) Controls to be in place within the buffer zones proposed by the State Party at the time of inscription:

The HUDCO Site Management Plan document elaborates controls to be placed on development within the buffer zones identified at the time of inscription.  The one km.  radius buffer zone is broken into two “special areas”, one permitting no development within approximately 0.5 km from the Temple Complex, and the second limiting development to one storey between 0.5 km and one km away from the temple.  The boundaries of the two inner buffer zones have been adjusted to suit ground conditions, and proposed control provisions within clarified and strengthened.  A “further periphery” zone extending beyond the one km buffer zone to two km on the Temple side of the river is also identified.  These provisions, as they involve a change to the buffer zone definition and protective regime proposed at the time of inscription should be reported to the World Heritage Committee, once adopted within the Development Plan for Bodhgaya.

e) Feasibility of the extension of the inscribed property to include the surrounding cultural landscape associated with the presence and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in the region:

The mission observed importance of giving consideration of the possible long-term extension of this property beyond the Mahabodhi Temple Complex, to include the surrounding cultural landscape directly associated with the enlightenment of the Lord Buddha.   The strengthening of the buffer zone boundary definitions and control provisions within the Development Plan for Bodhgaya provides a welcome measure of control over a large area outside the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple Complex.  If adopted, these controls will ensure strong protection of the Outstanding Universal Value recognized by inscription, and will also ensure maintaining the character of the immediately adjacent cultural landscape.  It would be useful, in considering the consequences of a possible future extension, to assess the extent of the landscape beyond the buffer zone and periphery zones described above, to identify those segments of the vernacular landscape associated with all facets of the Lord Buddha’s search for, and attainment of enlightenment, including the Pragbodhi Hill, adjacent river banks etc.

 

f) The mission also noted the importance of the peer review process identified by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004) and requested of the State Party.  The peer review was carried out by two Indian professionals in March 2005.  Their report was provided by the ASI to the UNESCO mission on 27 April 2005.  

The State Party was also invited by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004) to organise a series of stakeholder interventions in the process of improving and finalising the Management Plan.  The authors of the Site Management Plan have described strong efforts on their part to include stakeholders at all levels within Bodhgaya in their consultation process.

The mission was made aware of a certain number of illegal encroachments taking place in the immediate vicinity of the inscribed property.  While State and local authorities are taking measures to deal with these encroachments, it would be useful to accurately document existing conditions throughout the inscribed property, buffer zones and periphery zones, to provide a benchmark for future monitoring and reference.  

 

 Decision 

29COM7B.52

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined the Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,
2.  Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.57 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3.  Congratulates the State Party of India for the extensive efforts involved in putting together documents for the management plan of the property and organizing the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission of April 2005;
4.  Requests the State Party to:

a) Adopt the provisions of the Site Management Plan of April 2005 within the Bodhgaya Development Plan being prepared by the Bihar State Government, including those that touch the extent of, and controls within the Bodhgaya buffer zone and periphery zone;

b) Explore an appropriate management mechanism for the property to protect its outstanding universal value as well as the values of the adjacent buffer and periphery zones;

c) address the weaknesses identified by the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Mission of April 2005 in the present Management Plan document (April, 2005), particularly those related to description of the property’s outstanding universal value;

d) Establish appropriate forms of support, control and involvement at both national and state levels to put in place the management mechanism described in b) above; and

e) Prepare a detailed property documentation of existing conditions within buffer and periphery zones, as a basis for future monitoring.

5.  Encourages the State Party to explore the appropriateness of a long term extension of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex inscription to include the cultural landscape identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region, and possibly to include other properties associated with the life of the Buddha in India, for example, Sarnath (currently on the Indian national tentative list);
6.  Invites the State Party to give further consideration to the possible designation of the property under national legislation in order to ensure protection of its outstanding universal value as well as its authenticity and integrity;
7.  Requests the State Party to submit a report to the World Heritage Centre, by 1February 2006, on the progress made in the implementation of the above recommendations, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006).

 

REPORT 2006 … http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1184

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Analysis and Conclusion

The progress report, submitted by the State Party on 31 March 2006, provides brief information on the steps taken by the authorities in response to the recommendations made by the 29th session of the Committee (Durban, 2005).

The report states that the Bodhgaya Development Plan, entitled the “Heritage Led Perspective Development Plan of Bodhgaya, Vision 2031”, has been discussed with local stakeholders following the request of the Committee to adopt the provisions of the Site Management Plan of April 2005 within the development plan. The Gaya regional development authority is presently revising the Plan by incorporating the issues raised by local stakeholders with a view to finalising the document. The zoning proposed in the management plan has been incorporated into this development plan which also includes a focus on heritage protection. ICOMOS notes that a management plan and a development plan have different goals, and that it is important to define the relationship between them in ways that shall ensure that the protection of the outstanding universal value of the property is the basis for all decision-making in both plans.

Furthermore, the State Party reports that the Bodhgaya Development Plan includes heritage guidelines for the town that are to be followed by all major construction projects, notably a height control for buildings, as well as a ban on construction within the World Heritage boundaries and its buffer zone. At present, until the Bodhgaya Development Plan is approved and implemented by the State Government, any construction carried out within the designated World Heritage property area is being banned. However, in the context of the illegally approved constructions noted by the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission in 2005, the State Party has not reported whether the ban on construction is respected.

The State Party’s efforts to implement the Committee’s decisions concerning the management plan are commendable. However, ICOMOS recommends that the implementation of this plan should be further monitored to ensure that the concerns expressed in the joint World Heritage Centre-ICOMOS mission of 2005 are fully addressed, particularly those related to the recognition of the outstanding universal value of the site, and that a timeframe should be set in this regard.

In response to the Committee’s request thatappropriate management mechanisms be explored, the State Party reports that the capacity of the existing agency, the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC), is presently being strengthened in co-operation with the State Government of Bihar and the Central Government. The State Party underlines that a consensus on the management mechanism needs to be established amongst the different interest groups and stakeholders before any major change can be made in the present management system. ICOMOS reinforces the importance of this point and of ensuring full participation of the BTMC in the finalization of the management plan.

The report further mentions that detailed property documentation of existing conditions within buffer and periphery zones, as a basis for future monitoring, has been initiated and is expected to be completed by end July 2006. No specific details concerning the progress of this work have been provided in the report.

Regarding the invitation by the Committee to explore the appropriateness of an extension of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex nomination to include the cultural landscape that is identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region, the State Party considers that detailed archaeological surveys and excavations are required to determine the locations and extent of specific associated sites, and that the issue of the extension of the property can only be considered once this work has been completed. ICOMOS regards the area in question as a large cultural landscape, which may be defined without the need for archaeological analysis and comments that the State Party should give this issue the highest priority as this area is inextricably linked with the outstanding universal value of the property, and a delay in including the related landscape as an essential part of an extended nomination puts its survival at risk.

Regarding the possible designation of the property under national legislation, the State Party reports that the living religious nature of the site makes it necessary to initiate a process of consensus-building around any move to national legislation. This process is presently underway, notably at the local level. ICOMOS underlines the importance of the Government of India providing for sites inscribed on the World Heritage List the highest level of national legal protection, as is the case with other religious properties on the World Heritage List. 

 Decision 

30COM7B.64

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 29 COM 7B.52, adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),
3. Recognises the efforts and progress made by the State Party to respond to the requests made at the 29th session (Durban, 2005);
4. Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts to adopt and implement the provisions of the management plan of April 2005 within the Bodhgaya Development Plan, if possible by 1 February 2007;
5. Invites the State Party to request assistance from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to advance the implementation of the management plan, and to ensure the protection of the outstanding universal value of the property, as well as of the adjacent buffer and periphery zones;
6. Reiterates its recommendation to the State Party to undertake all necessary actions to ensure the nomination of the related landscape identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region as an extension to the Mahabodhi Temple Complex;
7. Strongly recommends that the State Party, as a matter of priority, follow-up on the possible designation of the property under national legislation;
8. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2007, a detailed report on the progress made on the above points, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007.

 

 

REPORT 2007 …. http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1024

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

 

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

General threats:

a) Lack of co-ordinated and integrated management system;

b) Lack of detailed property documentation;

c) Increasing numbers of visitors.

Specific threats:

d) Loss of character of the cultural landscape directly associated with the property and its outstanding universal value;

e) Lack of protection under national legislation.

 

Current conservation issues

The State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the World Heritage property on 27 January 2007. The report comments in detail on measures undertaken by the State Party to improve management of the property. These include:

a) Creation of an “Expert Advisory Committee” to assist with implementation of the site management plan. This group has met twice and made useful recommendations on a number of technical points;

b) Adoption of the site management plan of April 2005 by the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC), and ratification by the multi-stakeholder Advisory Board of the BTMC on 8 November 2006;

c) Adoption of the “Heritage led perspective development plan for Bodhgaya, Vision 2005-2031″ by BTMC’s Advisory Board on 8 November 2006 and also by the Gaya Regional Development Authority on 12 December 2006. The State Party report notes that the zoning proposed in the site management plan for core, buffer and periphery zones have been included in the development plan. The State Party also notes that the Gaya Regional Development Authority has submitted the Vision 2005-2031 document to the state government of Bihar for final approval and notification, and that approval is expected by 15 February 2007;

d) Adoption of construction ban within prescribed zones, along with legal actions;

e) Efforts to improve security of the Temple premises by the BMTC in accordance with the provisions made in the site management plan;

f) Further efforts to ensure technical strengthening of the BMTC committee and the establishment of a heritage reserve fund, to be utilized for the conservation and maintenance of the Temple Complex.

In relation to recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee at its 28th (Suzhou, 2004), 29th (Durban, 2005) and 30th (Vilnius, 2006) sessions to ensure the nomination of the related landscape identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region as an extension to the Mahabodhi Temple Complex, the State Party notes that funds are being sought from the Government of India to develop an “information base including GIS mapping of the surrounding regions” to facilitate finalizing a proposal for the extension of the property.

In response to previous recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee that the State Party, “as a matter of priority, follow-up on the possible designation of the property under national legislation”, the State Party report emphasizes that “technical support for conservation of Mahabodhi Temple and other ancient structures is extended by the Archaeological Survey of India, as and when required by the BTMC”. It is also noted that the Temple is now managed under a special act of the State Government of Bihar and could also be brought under the Archaeological act of the State Government of Bihar to further enhance the requisite protection of the site, and its authenticity, integrity and outstanding universal value.

In relation to site management, it is noted:

(i) That the State Party should inform the Committee whether the confirmation of approval of “Bodhgaya Vision 2005-2031” by the Gaya Regional Government, expected February 2007, has been received.

(ii) While the efforts to integrate provisions of both documents are appreciated, it is suggested that the State Party confirm the primacy of the site management plan, should there be any conflict between the Vision 2005-2031 development plan and the site management plan.

(iii) ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre note the efforts to ban new construction until the development plan is fully adopted, and to take legal action if required. It would be appreciated if the State Party could confirm that illegal constructions which are numerous, and in many cases very offensive, will all be removed from the World Heritage site and its buffer zone.

In relation to extending the nomination to include the surrounding cultural landscape, it is noted, as last year, that the activities intended to be undertaken by the State Party prior to inclusion of the surrounding cultural landscape (2006: detailed archaeological surveys and excavations, 2007: GIS data base), are not critically important for adequately defining an associative cultural landscape of this scale and importance. ICOMOS would like to stress again that the State Party should give the extension of the site the highest priority, given that this cultural landscape is inextricably linked with the outstanding universal value of the property, and that any further delay in including the related landscape as an essential part of an extended nomination puts its survival at risk.

In relation to protecting the site under national legislation, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre again emphasize that while recognizing the difficulties of extending national legislation to a living religious site, and the importance of strengthening protective measures at State level, that a site of World Heritage status deserves to be recognized nationally and offered the benefit of all possible national level support and protection. It is suggested that efforts in this direction be combined with efforts to extend and redefine the World Heritage property to include the associated cultural landscape. 

 

 Decision 

31COM7B.82

The World Heritage Committee,

1.       Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B;

2.       Recalling Decision 30 COM 7B.64, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

3.       Notes with satisfaction that the State Party has adopted the site management plan and the “Heritage led perspective development plan for Bodhgaya, Vision 2005-2031″ and its continuing efforts to develop management mechanisms which fully and effectively integrate all stakeholders in protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property;

4.       Encourages the State Party to inform the World Heritage Committee concerning the following aspects of the implementation of the site management plan:

a)      confirmation of the adoption of the Vision 2005-2031 development plan by the Gaya Region, in integrating relevant provisions of the site management plan;

b)      commitment of the authorities to continue to enforce the ban on construction at the property;

5.       Strongly urges the State Party to re-submit the property for inscription as a cultural landscape at the very earliest opportunity before the character of this important landscape, directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the  Mahabodhi Temple, is irretrievably lost;

6.       Suggests that the State Party use the occasion of the resubmitted nomination to ensure national protection of the entire extended property;

7.       Requests the State Party to submit a report to the World Heritage Centre on 1 February 2009 on its progress in responding to the requests made above, for examination by the Committee at its 33nd session in 2009. 

 

REPORT 2010 … http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/508

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Current conservation issues

On 5 February 2010 a report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party. This report covered management and visitor related issues, conservation works carried out at the property, the state of progress on the implementation of the management plan, and a report on the health of the Bodhi Tree. The report also included a copy of the legal act protecting the property at the Bihar State level, and the minutes of the annual meetings of the Expert Advisory Committee on Mahabodhi Temple from 2005 to 2009. 

a) Confirmation of the adoption of the Vision 2005-2031 Development Plan by the Gaya Region, integrating relevant provisions of the site management plan

The State Party report indicates that the site is being managed by the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) under the Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949. There is also an Expert Advisory Committee on Mahabodhi to give regular advice to the management committee on activities to be undertaken. In specific reference to the request by the World Heritage Committee in regard to ensuring that the management plan has been integrated into the larger 2005 – 2031 Development Plan, the State Party report states clearly that all development activities in Bodhgaya, including those related to tourism management, are now guided by the management plan. The report further states that the level of visitors remains on the increase. There are, however, no indications as to how this increased visitor flow is being dealt with, and the annexed minutes of the Expert Advisory Committee indicate that work has not yet been initiated for the improvement of signage and visitor information at the site.  

The Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre welcome this confirmation by the BTMC that the site management plan is now being used as a guideline for development at the Temple complex and in Bodhgaya. It is not always clear, however, how the decisions taken by the Expert Advisory Committee (as found in the minutes provided), conform to the management plan. Concerns also still remain in regard to the management of the increasing number of pilgrims and other visitors to the site. 

b) Commitment of the authorities to continue to enforce the ban on construction at the property

The State Party report states clearly that all development activities in Bodhgaya are now guided by the management plan, which states along with the development plan that no new construction should take place within the World Heritage property, and that very limited development related to religious and related usage can be allowed in the buffer zone. However, no indications as to the commitment of the authorities to continue to enforce the ban on construction at the property was contained in the State Party report as requested by the Committee at its 31st session.

c) Conservation issues (including the state of the Bodhi Tree)

The State Party report provides a short update on completed and ongoing conservation and restoration of specific elements within the temple compound. There is mention within the Expert Advisory Committee minutes to proposals for new boundary railings and carved panels showing the life of the Buddha, for which advice from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies would be sought. There is also extensive information on the health of the Bodhi tree, which has improved in the past three years with proper attention.

The Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre welcome the ongoing conservation works that have been carried out at the property in cooperation with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The State Party reports, however, does not provide enough information on the conservation work carried out or on the proposed additional elements (railings and panels) referred to in the Expert Advisory Committee minutes. There also remains some concern about the use of appropriate materials for conservation and repair work. 

d) Protection of the landscape surrounding the property including by the submission of a re-nomination for the inscription of an extended area as a cultural landscape

Due to the importance of the property within its larger cultural landscape associated with the life of Buddha, the World Heritage Committee at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), strongly urged the State Party to submit a nomination for the property as a cultural landscape incorporating not only the temple complex but the surrounding landscape. There was no information in the state of conservation report submitted by the State Party on this issue.

As stated in previous reports, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the extension of this property to include its landscape is an important objective in order to capture additional aspects that would enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and to allow for the protection of this significant landscape. Recognising that it is the prerogative of the State Party to decide whether or not to re-nominate an extended property, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that it would be useful to further discuss this issue with the State Party in the context of any missions to the site and/or of the Periodic Reporting process, 

e) Legal Status of the property

Although not contained in the body of the State of Conservation Report, the annexed minutes of the Expert Advisory Committee on Mahabodhi Temple, dated July 2009, mention that no progress has been made on the request by the World Heritage Committee to have the site protected at the national level in addition to the state protection. 

Given its status as a World Heritage property, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies continue to consider that the declaration of the property as a national monument would give additional protection. It may be, however, that the State Party and the BTMC feel that the current legal protection under Bihar State law is sufficient with the ASI being called in for conservation works. This is an issue that should be further explored in consultation with the State Party, the BTMC, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies possibly in the context of a mission.

In conclusion, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies welcome progress made by the BTMC at the property. It should be emphasized, however, that as requested in the mission report from 2005, a retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value is needed to guide conservation and management decisions. Attention should also be called to the need to ensure that decision-making by both the BTMC and Expert Advisory Committee is in conformity with the management plan, and that proper advice is sought on conservation activities and any new proposals for the property. For this reason, a mission would be useful in 2011 with the aim of discussing with the State Party and BTMC the progress made on the site to date, and to clarify the feasibility of earlier recommendations of the World Heritage Committee for national legal protection and an extension to the property.

 

 

Decision 

34COM7B.70

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B,
2.  Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.82, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
3.  Notes with satisfaction that the State Party has confirmed that all development activities coming within the approved “Vision 2005-2031 Development Plan” are being guided by the provisions of the Site Management Plan for the property and encourages the State Party to continue the implementation of the Site Management Plan and the Development Plan 2005-2031;
4.  Reiterates its request to the State Party to consider re-nominating the property as a cultural landscape, as already suggested at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), to enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and protect the character of the important landscape directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site;
5.  Requests the State Party to explore the possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;
6.  Also requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission to the property in 2011 with the aim of discussing with the State Party and the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) the progress made at the site to date, as well as to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the above recommendations;
7.  Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre on 1 February 2012 an updated report on the state of conservation and progress made in responding to the requests made above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.

 

REPORT 2011

World Heritage  Patrimoine mondial  36 COM

Distribution limited / limitée Paris, 29 March / 29 mars 2012 Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES  POUR L’EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE

 

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE / COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

Thirty-sixth session / Trente-sixième session Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation / Saint Pétersbourg, Fédération de Russie

24 June – 6 July 2012 / 24 juin – 6 juillet 2012

Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and/or on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Point 7 de l’Ordre du jour provisoire: Etat de conservation de biens inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial et/ou sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril

MISSION REPORT / RAPPORT DE MISSION

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (India) (C 1056 rev)

Ensemble du temple de la Mahabodhi à Bodhgaya (Inde) (C 1056 rev)

21-27 February 2011

This mission report should be read in conjunction with Document:

Ce rapport de mission doit être lu conjointement avec le document suivant:

WHC-12/36.COM/7B

 

REPORT ON THE JOINT WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE / ICOMOS/ICCROM

REACTIVE MONITORING MISSION TO THE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY OF MAHABODHI TEMPLE COMPLEX AT BODH GAYA

(INDIA, C 1056 rev) 21-27 February 2011

Authors

Feng JING (UNESCO World Heritage Centre)

Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM)

Augusto Villalon (ICOMOS International)

 

REPORT ON THE MISSION TO Mahabodhi Temple Complex at

Bodhgaya (India,) from 21 to 27 February 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS (1-2 pages max)

(Please note: This section should be written for use as the official State of Conservation report draft working document to the World Heritage Committee.)

Report length 10-15 pages plus annexes

1 BACKGROUND TO THE MISSION

Inscription history

Inscription criteria and World Heritage values

Integrity issues raised in the ICOMOS/IUCN evaluation report at time of inscription

Examination of the State of Conservation by the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau (refer to previous State of Conservation reports etc.)

Justification of the mission (terms of reference, itinerary, programme and composition of mission team provided in Annex)

2 NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY

Protected area legislation

Institutional framework

Management structure

Response to the recognition of values under international treaties and programmes (World Heritage Convention, Biosphere Reserve etc.)

 

3 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES / THREATS

Management effectiveness,

Nature and extent of threats to the property, taking into consideration the natural values for which the property was inscribed and specific issues outlined by the World Heritage Committee,

Positive or negative developments in the conservation of the property since the last report to the World Heritage Committee,

Information on any threat or damage to or loss of outstanding universal value, integrity and/or authenticity for which the property was inscribed.

4 ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE PROPERTY

Review whether the values, on the basis of which the property was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the conditions of integrity are being maintained,

Review any follow-up measures to previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the property and measures which the State Party plans to take to protect the outstanding universal value of the property.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for any additional action to be taken by the State Party, including draft recommendations to the World Heritage Committee

Whenever further action is needed, clear benchmarks indicating the corrective measures to be taken in order to achieve significant improvement of the state of conservation and a timeframe within which the benchmarks will have to be met

Recommendation as to whether the level of threats to the property warrants the property being removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger

6 ANNEXES

Terms of reference

Itinerary and programme

Composition of mission team

List and contact details of people met

Maps (most recent maps of the boundaries of the property)

Photographs and other graphical material (showing issues of integrity)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

The Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM monitoring mission to the World Heritage property of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodhgaya has been kindly coordinated by the distinguished representatives of the national and state Governments of India and the site management body, as well as experts who provided important information to the mission. The mission members would like to express sincere thanks to all those officers and experts who have kindly accompanied the team during the valuable discussions and on-site visits to the property. Our gratitude also goes to the representatives from the Citizens Forum, NGOs such as Hotel Association, International Buddhist Council (IBC) at Bodhgaya, and the media who kindly provided information to the mission team.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

Dr Gautam Sengupta, Director-General

Mr Praveen Srivastava, ADG, ASI

Dr B. R. Mani, Joint Director-General, ASI

Mr Janhwij Sharma, Director of Conservation, ASI

Mrs Radhika Dhumal, Consultant Conservation Architect, ASI

Mr Sanjay Kumar Manjul, Superintendent Archaeologist, ASI Patna Circle Office,

Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC)

Ms Bandana Preyashi, District Magistrate, Gaya cum, Chairperson, BTMC

Mr Nangzey Dorjee, Member Secretary of BTMC

Ven Bhikkhu Chalinda, Chief Monk, Mahabodhi Temple

Ven Deenananl, Care Taker, Mahabodhi Temple

 

All other BTMC members who attended the Stakeholders consultation meetings and

accompanied the mission during field visits.

 

State Government of Bihar (Patna)

Mr Anup Mukerji, Chief Secretary

Mr Vivek Kumar Singh, Commissioner of Magadh Division

Mr K.C. Saha, Development Commissioner

Principle Secretary, Home Department

Principal Secretary, Department of Culture

Principla Secretary, Department of Tourism

Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development

 

UNESCO Office in New Delhi

Mr Armoogum Parsuramen, Director

Mr Takahiko Makino, Programme Specialist for Culture

Ms Paromita De Sarkar, Project Manager

Ms Shalini Mahajan, Project Manager

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS

In accordance with World Heritage Committee Decision 34 COM 7B.80 (Brasilia, July 2010), a Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission was carried to Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (India, C 1056 rev) from 21 to 27 February 2011.

The mission discussed with the State Party and Bodhgaya Temple management Committee (BTMC) the progress made at the site to date and identified specific corrective measures to address the threats in the previous reports/missions.

Having examined the state of conservation of the World Heritage property, as well as the institutional and legal framework within which the property is conserved and managed, the mission concluded that the State Party of India have made efforts to respond to the concerns expressed and requests by the World Heritage Committee. The mission, however noted that a number of important conservation and management issues remain to be addressed to ensure a better protection and management of the World Heritage property and its Buffer Zone.

In general terms, the Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya World Heritage property appears to be retaining its Outstanding Universal Value. The Temple compound seems to be large enough to physically accommodate the day-to-day small changes that have occurred so far from the religious activities. Regular maintenance work and restorations being carried out, while demonstrating the State Party and Site Management Authority’s strong and positive intention to preserve the property, nevertheless further enhancement is required to ensure the authenticity and the integrity of the property is retained.

The mission would nevertheless underline the conservation issues for the property from a broader context in view of the proposed extension of the property by the State Party as a Cultural Landscape. A strategic vision for the protection and management of the property as a living heritage site is needed to ensure a value-based approach for urban and rural planning, heritage protection and management. The mission witnessed some of the infrastructure development projects around the property, which were being implemented at a fast pace, and noted with some concern, for the potential pipeline development projects under discussion and/or planning.

 

The Mission’s findings have resulted in the following concluding recommendations. These recommendations have been based on the assessment of progress made the State Party to address the conservation issues identified by the World Heritage Committee, as well as other general policy directions and observations:

Concluding Recommendation concerning a strategic vision

5.1 A shared, balanced vision is required, which integrates heritage conservation and community development needs for the short and longer term. Considering the future extension of the World Heritage property to include other component parts in the Cultural Landscape, a co-ordinated long term vision for the conservation and management of Bogh Gaya as a living heritage site needs to be elaborated through meaningful stakeholder consultation, where a holistic values-based approach on urban and rural development and World Heritage protection and management is adopted by all concerned, especially the citizens and religious communities of BodhGaya.

Concluding Recommendation on property boundary and Buffer Zone

 

5.2. As discussed and agreed by the Chief Secretary and his staff during the discussions, a new holistic approach with planning authorities and relevant stakeholders are required to commence work who will initially work with existing Boundaries of the property and define a Buffer Zone for the property. The overall management of the World Heritage property will be integrated into the planning process. This should therefore address some of the following issues with regard to boundaries and Buffer Zone: a) Redefinition of boundaries with stakeholder consultations for greater understanding and participation for all parties to jointly determine all requirements within Buffer Zone; b) to reverse the misconception that World Heritage is restrictive, introduce a proactive vision of World Heritage and c) Necessary regulatory measures for the Buffer Zone should be established and implemented as a matter of priority. Based on the new Buffer Zone and considering the existing boundaries, Management Plan should be revised. If necessary, as stated by the Chief Secretary, action can be taken to strengthen the provisions of the BTMC Act to provide more power.

Regional planning authorities should revisit their plans based on the new boundaries and the Management plan with a view to help maintain the Outstanding Universal Value, to reduce any future pressures, to facilitate the pilgrims and to bring benefits of the place to the local community. It was agreed that Buffer Zone planning will be undertaken under the lead of the Bihar State Development Commissioner’s Office who will conduct consultations with all stakeholders to achieve a shared sense of strategic direction among all parties. The revised plan is to be submitted by November 2011 to ASI in the framework of the on-going second cycle of Periodic Reporting for Asia and the Pacific region.

Concluding Recommendation on Management Planning

5.3 Based on the Management Plan and also the revised regional development plan, establish more amenities, introduce other attractions within the Buffer Zone to diffuse heavy pilgrim load on Mahabodhi Temple, especially during festival periods. Also measures need to be taken to improve facilities and amenities (lodging, food, transportation, etc) for pilgrims at all levels.

5.4 As part of the Management planning process, conduct a year long study of the patterns of pilgrimages to understand pressures, if any, at any given time that can affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and to develop strategies to mitigate them.

Re-nominating of the property as a Cultural Landscape

5.5 In fact, the present urban congestion prevent the consolidation of the large area around Mahabodhi Temple as a Buddhist Cultural Landscape to be nominated for World Heritage listing. However, a serial nomination where a number of sites associated with the Lord Buddha is a more feasible approach. Moreover, the Cultural Landscape nomination is not in the priorities of the State Government of Bihar authorities whose focus is to improve infrastructure in Bodh Gaya and to complete the planning of the Buffer Zone.

Therefore, the proposal of re-nominating the property as a Cultural Landscape could be left to the national authorities for further studies and future actions

5.6 It appears that greater emphasis on coordination and communication between amongst different stakeholders, including the religious community is lacking. A clearer understanding on the requirements for World Heritage protection and management should be ensured while putting forward management structure for the property. Strengthening the BTMC expertise on the understanding of the OUV and the means and ways to maintain it would be essential. At the same time, ASI could have a regular liaising with the BTMC and its Expert Committee on Conservation. BTMC can be encouraged to apply for International assistance through the World Heritage Fund

5.7 Enhance, particularly municipal / Panchayat level in bodhgaya, awareness building in relation to World Heritage conservation processes, internationally recognized conservation standards and procedures, as well as timely information dissemination to the general public and citizens. There is a need to improve ways of information sharing and communication on conservation programmes and the World Heritage property through better publicity and other promotional activities on the importance of this sacred World Heritage site.

 

Enhancing the Management system, public communication and outreach

5.8 The BTMC deserves commendation for the good overall state of conservation of Mahabodhi Temple that is under its direction by virtue of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. ASI has likewise done well in maintaining the temple. Although adequate measures have been taken by BTMC to decongest pilgrim traffic centered at the main Temple and Bodhi Tree by providing dispersal areas within the limited area of the complex, management of the extreme number of pilgrim arrivals during festivals held at special times of the year is difficult. Providing secondary pilgrimage destinations located in the Buffer Zone will help to further disperse pilgrims and to ease heavy visitor pressure on Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree.

The ex-officio appointment of the District Magistrate of Bodh Gaya as Member of the Expert Advisory Committee and BTMC Chairman establishes close links with the State Government of Bihar whose Chief Secretary pledged his full support to maintain the property’s OUV through establishing a unified approach in aligning all State programs, budgets, and projects with the needs of Mahabodhi Temple, pilgrims, and the Bodh Gaya stakeholder community.

Concluding recommendation on legal provision for the protection of the site

5.9 In consultation with BTMC, the State Government of Bihar, and ASI led to the commitment by the State Government of Bihar to act on the requests of BTMC and Bodh Gaya authorities, to provide all conservation and maintenance measures for the property. The State of Bihar has the necessary legal instruments to intervene and assist Mahabodhi Temple exists through the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. This is currently running well.

The declaration of Mahabodhi Temple as a National Monument required the establishment of a new set of legal framework that transfers authority to the national government. However, should Mahabodhi Temple be transferred to National Monument status, the mandate transfers all management to ASI, a responsibility that ASI officials indicated they are significantly under resourced to assume a leading role. ASI suggested that it would be best to continue the present arrangement of BTMC contracting ASI for specific conservation services on an “as and when required” basis. Under such an arrangement, BTMC, as a paying client of ASI, does not fall into the national budget queue for ASI services. Furthermore ASI pointed out that it has no expertise in maintaining the living heritage aspect of Mahabodhi Temple. In regard, to the improvement of the existing Site Management procedures, the pragmatic approach was taken to strengthen and build up existing mechanisms and work within the legal framework already put into place through the State of Bihar. To ensure more satisfactory results rather than going through the time-consuming process of introducing new management mechanisms and legal framework required by the change of status to National Monument listing.

Concluding Recommendations for capacity-building and training

5.10 UNESCO Office in New Delhi, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and, ICCROM will fully support the relevant Indian authorities and BTMC for the organization of training activities to upgrade and enhance capacity of the professionals and policy makers responsible for the protection of the World Heritage property and its surrounding area. Such training could include urban planning issues for living World Heritage sites, a refresher course on international conservation norms could possibly take place at national level with the support of UNESCO New Delhi or ICOMOS India.

General concluding recommendations

5.11 In general terms, and despite some negative incidents and development pressures, the World Heritage property of Mahabodhi Temple at Godh Gaya has remained its authenticity and integrity. It may therefore be concluded that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is still being maintained by the State Party of India. The property should remain on the World Heritage List, while the State Party is strongly urged to take effective steps to enhance co-ordination through existing institutional frameworks in the national and State Governments to mitigate any future threats which may arise through urban and rural development planned and implemented without consideration of the living heritage site’s needs. Information awareness raising, capacity building, outreach in the decision making process are also strongly recommended as present insufficient levels of these three issues have resulted in unfortunate misunderstanding between stakeholders and the general public, including local citizens, loss of financial resources, as well as negative impact on the World Heritage property

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Description of the property and inscription history

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodhgaya (India) (ID 1056 rev)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List: 2002

Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

Brief Description

The Mahabodhi Temple Complex is one of the four holy sites related to the life of the Lord Buddha, and particularly to the attainment of Enlightenment. The first temple was built by Emperor Asoka in the 3rd century B.C., and the present temple dates from the 5th or 6th centuries. It is one of the earliest Buddhist temples built entirely in brick, still standing in India, from the late Gupta period.

1.2. Inscription criteria and World Heritage values

The property was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2002 on the basis of criterion (i), (ii),(iii),(iv) and (vi). The World Heritage Committee decision; 26 COM 23.15 stated the following as justification:

Criterion (i): The grand 50m high Mahabodhi Temple of the 5th-6th centuries is of immense importance, being one of the earliest temple constructions existing in the Indian sub-continent. It is one of the few representations of the architectural genius of the Indian people in constructing fully developed brick temples in that era.

Criterion (ii) The Mahabodhi Temple, one of the few surviving examples of early brick structures in India, has had significant influence in the development of architecture over the centuries.

Criterion (iii) The site of the Mahabodhi Temple provides exceptional records for the events associated with the life of Buddha and subsequent worship, particularly since Emperor Asoka built the first temple, the balustrades, and the memorial column.

Criterion (iv) The present Temple is one of the earliest and most imposing structures built entirely in brick from the late Gupta period. The sculpted stone balustrades are an outstanding early example of sculptural reliefs in stone.

Criterion (vi) The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bodh Gaya has direct association with the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained supreme and perfect insight.

1.3. Authenticity and integrity of the property

Authenticity:

Buddha had attained Enlightenment in this particular place is now called Bodh Gaya; this is of supreme value to the world. It has been documented since the time of Emperor Asoka who built the first temple in 260 BCE when he came to this place to worship the Bodhi Tree, which still stands as witness to the event, along with the attributes of the property (the Vajrasana, etc). Buddhist texts of both Theravadhan and Mahayanan traditions have clear reference of this event of Buddha’s enlightenment at Bodh Gaya. Buddhists from all over the world today venerate Bodh Gaya as the holiest place of Buddhist pilgrimage in the world.

This confirms the use, function, location and setting of the complex/property. The outstanding universal value of the property is truthfully expressed through the attributes present today. The architecture of the Temple has remained essentially unaltered and follows the original form and design. The Mahabodhi Temple Complex has continuous visitation by pilgrims from all over the world to offer prayers, perform religious ceremonies and meditate. (from Draft SOUV) Integrity:

The historical evidences and texts reveal that the parts of present Temple Complex date from different periods. The main Temple, the Vajrasana, the seat of Buddha’s enlightenment was preserved by Emperor Asoka and the Bodhi Tree under which Buddha attained enlightenment witnessed through the ages, the site’s glory, decline and revival since middle of 19th century A.D onwards is unchanged and complete.

The main part of the temple is recorded from about the 5th – 6th century A.D. But, it has undergone various repairs and renovation works since then. Having suffered from long abandonment (13th -18th century A.D) it was extensively restored in the 19th century, A.D and more works were carried out in the second half of the 20th century A.D. Nevertheless, the temple is considered to be the oldest and best preserved example of brick architecture in India from this particular period. Even though the structure has suffered from neglect and repairs in various periods, it has retained its essential features intact. (from draft SOUV)

1.4. Examination of the State of Conservation by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and corresponding decisions between 2002~ 2010 The attention of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has been drawn to the state of conservation of Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodhgaya, World Heritage property 6 times since its inscription on 2002. One Joint World Heritage Centre/ ICOMOS mission in April 2005 has taken place in April 2005, which reported on aspects relating to the state of conservation of the property. The summary state of conservation reports and decisions from previous sessions of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee between 2003 and 2010 are recalled and reviewed below.

27th session of the World Heritage Committee (Paris, 30 June – 5 July 2003)

Decision – 27COM 7B.46

1. Having examined the state of conservation of the property for the first time since its inscription on the World Heritage List in 2002,;

2. Recalling the concern at the time of inscription regarding the tourism and pilgrimage pressures facing the property,;

3. While noting that the absence of a functioning comprehensive management plan has persisted in spite of the Committee’s recommendation at the time of inscription of the property for the development of such plan (26 COM 23.16), expresses its appreciation to the State Party for commencing the elaboration of such a plan,;

4. Expresses concern over the continuing tensions and occasional conflicts between local stakeholders, in particular the religious groups who wish to use this important religiousWorld Heritage property;

5. Recognizing the associated heritage significance of the surrounding areas of the Mahabodhi Temple which are intrinsically linked to the enlightenment of Buddha, but which are not within the core nor the buffer zone of the existing World Heritage property,;

6. Invites the State Party to enlarge the World Heritage protected area to ensure that the protective core and buffer zones are meaningful and effective for the conservation of the values of the property;

7. Requests the State Party to complete the elaboration of a comprehensive management plan which adequately integrates:

(a) Local community and stakeholders’ dialogue and co-operation,

(b) Protection, conservation and preservation of the heritage value and assets of this sacred property,

(c) Control of development activities within and surrounding the property related to tourism and pilgrimage activities;

8. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 the completed comprehensive management plan in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.

 

28th session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, 28 June – 7 July 2004)

Decision – 28COM 15B.57

The World Heritage Committee,

 1. Recalling the concern at the time of inscription regarding the tourism and pilgrimage pressures facing the property,

2. Congratulates the State Party for initiating efforts to elaborate a comprehensive document relevant to the long-term conservation and management of the property;

 3. Requests the State Party to pursue its efforts towards the finalisation of the current management plan for peer review by the Indian conservation professionals and taking into account the suggestions made by the Advisory Bodies in the joint ICCROM-ICOMOS paper, in particular focusing on:

a) integrating a heritage values-sensitive approach to management,

b) basing the document on protection of the inscribed Mahabodhi World heritage property,

c) developing a realistic implementation strategy,

d) including a peer review process within development of the plan;

4. Encourages the State Party to identify legal mechanisms to designate the Mahabodhi Temple Complex as a protected monument, to ensure maintenance of the buffer zone proposed by the State Part for Mahabodhi at the time of inscription, and to consider the possible extension of the core zone to include the Bodhgaya property;

5. Invites the State Party to organise a series of stakeholders’ interventions in the process of improving and finalising the management plan, and to submit a request for Technical cooperation Assistance for this purpose;

 6. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to organise a first joint mission in order to assess the steps taken by the State Party to protect the World Heritage values of the property, and to submit its report for examination by the 29th session of the Committee in 2005.

29th Session of the World Heritage Committee (Durban, 10 – 17 July 2005)

Decision – 29COM 7B.52

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.57 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Congratulates the State Party of India for the extensive efforts involved in putting together documents for the management plan of the property and organizing the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission of April 2005;

4. Requests the State Party to:

a) adopt the provisions of the Site Management Plan of April 2005 within the Bodhgaya Development Plan being prepared by the Bihar State Government, including those that touch the extent of, and controls within the Bodhgaya buffer zone and periphery zone;

b) explore an appropriate management mechanism for the property to protect its outstanding universal value as well as the values of the adjacent buffer and periphery zones;

c) address the weaknesses identified by the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Mission of April 2005 in the present Management Plan document (April, 2005), particularly those related to description of the property’s outstanding universal value;

d) establish appropriate forms of support, control and involvement at both national and state levels to put in place the management mechanism described in b) above; and

e) prepare a detailed property documentation of existing conditions within buffer and periphery zones, as a basis for future monitoring.

5. Encourages the State Party to explore the appropriateness of a long term extension of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex inscription to include the cultural landscape identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region, and possibly to include other properties associated with the life of the Buddha in India, for example, Sarnath

(currently on the Indian national tentative list);

6. Invites the State Party to give further consideration to the possible designation of the property under national legislation in order to ensure protection of its outstanding universal value as well as its authenticity and integrity;

7. Requests the State Party to submit a report to the World Heritage Centre, by 1February 2006, on the progress made in the implementation of the above recommendations, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006).

30th Session of the World Heritage Committee (Vilnius, July 2006)

Decision – 30COM 7B.64

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7B, 2. Recalling Decision 29 COM 7B.52, adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),

3. Recognises the efforts and progress made by the State Party to respond to the requests made at the 29th session (Durban, 2005);

4. Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts to adopt and implement the provisions of the management plan of April 2005 within the Bodhgaya Development Plan, if possible by

1 February 2007;

5. Invites the State Party to request assistance from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to advance the implementation of the management plan, and to ensure the protection of the outstanding universal value of the property, as well as of the adjacent buffer and periphery zones;

6. Reiterates its recommendation to the State Party to undertake all necessary actions to ensure the nomination of the related landscape identified with the wanderings and enlightenment of the Lord Buddha in this region as an extension to the Mahabodhi Temple Complex;

7. Strongly recommends that the State Party, as a matter of priority, follow-up on the possible designation of the property under national legislation;

8. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2007, a detailed report on the progress made on the above points, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007.

31st session of the World Heritage Committee (Christchurch, July 2007)

Decision- 31 COM 7B.82

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B;

2. Recalling Decision 30 COM 7B.64, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

3. Notes with satisfaction that the State Party has adopted the site management plan and the “Heritage led perspective development plan for Bodhgaya, Vision 2005-2031″ and its continuing efforts to develop management mechanisms which fully and effectively integrate all stakeholders in protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property;

4. Encourages the State Party to inform the World Heritage Committee concerning the following aspects of the implementation of the site management plan:

a) confirmation of the adoption of the Vision 2005-2031 development plan by the Gaya Region, in integrating relevant provisions of the site management plan;

b) commitment of the authorities to continue to enforce the ban on construction at the World Heritage property;

5. Strongly urges the State Party to re-submit the property for inscription as a cultural landscape at the very earliest opportunity before the character of this important landscape, directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site, is irretrievably lost;

6. Suggests that the State Party use the occasion of the resubmitted nomination to ensure national protection of the entire extended property;

7. Requests the State Party to submit a report to the World Heritage Centre on 1 February 2009 on its progress in responding to the requests made above, for examination by the Committee at its 33nd Session in 2009.

34th session of the World Heritage Committee (Brasília, 2010)

Decision -34 COM 7B.70

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.82, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Notes with satisfaction that the State Party has confirmed that all development activities coming within the approved “Vision 2005-2031 Development Plan” are being guided by the provisions of the Site Management Plan for the property and encourages the State Party to continue the implementation of the Site Management Plan and the Development Plan 2005-2031;

4. Reiterates its request to the State Party to consider re-nominating the property as a cultural landscape, as already suggested at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), to enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and protect the character of the important landscape directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site;

5. Requests the State Party to explore the possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;

6. Also requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission to the property in 2011 with the aim of discussing with the State Party and the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) the progress made at the site to date, as well as to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the above recommendations;

7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre on 1 February 2012 an updated report on the state of conservation and progress made in responding to the requests made above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012

1.5. Justification of the February 2011 Joint UNESCO WHC/ICOMOS /ICRROM

mission The terms of reference of the mission derive from the Decision of the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee in July 2010. Essentially paragraphs 3, 4, 5 of the Committee Decision 34 COM 7B.80 (Brasilia, July 2010) below constitute the primary issues, which the mission (requested in paragraph 6) was expected to review in assessing progress made by the State Party in protecting the values of the inscribed property.

The Joint UNESCO WHC/ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission was carried out pursuant to the Committee Decision 34 COM 7B.80 from 21 to 27 February 2011. The mission team is composed of the following persons:

 

1. Mr Feng JING, Chief a.i, Asia and the Pacific Section, UNESCO World Heritage

Centre;

2. Mr Augusto Villalon, Conservation Architect, representing the International Council

on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS International);

3. Dr Gamini Wijesuriya, Project Manager of Site Unit, the International Centre for the

Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM, Italy)

4. Mr Tahakiko Makino, Programme Specialist for Culture, UNESCO Office in New

Delhi.

2. NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY

2.1. Heritage legislation

Although property is not declared under the national heritage legislation, Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) has been established through an enactment at state level. BTMC works closely with the national Heritage authorities for matters pertaining to conservation.

2.2. Institutional framework, management structure and co-ordination mechanisms Day-to-day and long term management of the Bodhgaya has been empowered to the BTMC, which is chaired by the highest level public official representing the region. BTMC has an advisory body and also an office with paid staff at the site, which undertakes the day today management of the property and religious activities. The Funds are mostly coming from the donations of the pilgrims.

On matters related to conservation of structures, which are parts of the attributes manifesting OUV, the Archaeological survey of India are being consulted and tasks are entrusted with financial provisions from the BTMC.

2.2.1. Central government institutional framework Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) acts as the nodal agency for all World Heritage matters which includes Bodhgaya World Heritage property.

2.2.2. Other stakeholders at central government and local government levels in the management process of the World Heritage property BTMC comes under the mandate of the Bihar State government of which Chief Secretary is the highest civil administration authority. The Chair of the BTMC, District Magistrate comes under the civil administration. Through the Chief Secretary, BTMC has the access to all relevant organs of the administration, such as urban development and cultural administration. BTMC is the responsible management authority for the property. Grampanchayath, the grassroots level administrative unit, regional planning units, and the associations of Buddhist societies based around properties are considered as important stakeholders.

3. IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES / THREATS (including positive or negative developments in the conservation of the property since the last report to the World Heritage Committee)

In contrast to many World Heritage properties, which are owned and managed by the central government agencies, this property has no legal jurisdiction of the central Government cultural heritage agency which is the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This property with its very high religious significance at national and international level, that requires the maintaining and management of the spiritual dimensions, and the massive crowds of pilgrimages. Some of the legal provisions of ASI if implemented may even hinder the management actions, which require certain flexibilities in dealing with liturgical requirements.

On this basis, the current management arrangements where all day-to-day activities related to liturgical and visitor aspects and cleaning are being managed by the semi governmental site management body of BTMC with its permanent office and staff is very effective. They are conscious of maintaining the religious values as well as the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and calls for the help of ASI to undertake all conservation activities. BTMC has also appointed an Expert Advisory Committee with eminent persons from the country with a view to advice on all conservation measures. All necessary funds are provided by the BTMC for the ASI to carry out conservation work. BTMC is ready to train their staff to better understand the importance attached to the place as a World Heritage property and to train their staff with a view to help maintaining the OUV. Management systems operating at this property are worth studying closely, as they may offer lessons to share with managing of similar religious sites.

This place is attached by large numbers of pilgrims. With the expanded travel and accommodation facilities, pilgrims are ever increasing to the place, arriving from the countries where Buddhism is still in practice. Undoubtedly, the Outstanding Universal Value of the property may attract tourists’ from the rest of the world. Seasonality which fluctuate the number of pilgrims is a phenomenon due to festivals, as well as the climatic conditions of the region. However, the pilgrimage has no threats to the OUV of the property. On the contrary, it can be enhanced with the increase of the pilgrims who will also be able to experience a World Heritage property in addition to the religious values for which they visit the place.

Temple Act of 1949, BTMC undertakes routine maintenance of the property in addition to its primary function of managing all religious aspects of Mahabodhi Temple.

Conservation Expertise:

To correct its lack in conservation expertise, BTMC requests capacity building in this aspect. BTMC has requested the Bihar State Government for technical assistance and training by its conservation staff.

BTMC invited a representative from the UNESCO New Delhi Office to attend all meetings of the Expert Advisory Committee in Bodh Gaya to establish direct communications with UNESCO.

Links with Local and State Government Authorities

Background: The Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949 specifies the State

Government of Bihar as owner of the Property; therefore it is responsible for management and protection of the site.

Direct linkage has been established with local and state government authorities through the ex-officio presence of the Bodh Gaya District Magistrate as the Chair of BTMC.

ASI specialists provide professional and technical services in executing specified conservation projects for Mahabodhi Temple requested by BTMC on an “as and when required” status.

All necessary government and institutional links to assure effective management of Mahabodhi Temple and the protection of its World

Heritage values are presently in place; harmonious cooperation exists among all parties.

Integrity: The temple continues with its original purpose as an important pilgrimage center, considered the most important of all Buddhist holy sites, a site that the Buddha himself instructed the faithful to visit and venerate. Within its precincts, all of its essential physical features (Mahabodhi Temple, Vajrasana, Bodhi Tree, and 6 other sacred sites of the Buddha’s enlightenment, and a number of votive stupas) directly associated with the life of Lord Buddha continue to retain their essential features and remain intact, therefore its integrity is assured.

Authenticity: Mahabodhi Temple marks the place where the Buddha attained enlightenment. Documentation proves that as early as 260 B.C.E. Emperor Ashoka constructed the first temple after worshipping at this site. Situated within property boundaries are all its attributes: the temple itself, Bodhi Tree, Vajrasana, some of the 6 other sacred sites associated with the Boddha’s enlightenment are being well preserved. All conservation work undertaken within the Property is executed under the expert supervision of the ASI, who bases its conservation procedures upon assuring the preservation of the monument’s authenticity.

Pilgrim Management: Despite great seasonal fluctuation that drastically affects the number of pilgrim arrivals at the Mahabodhi Temple Complex; within temple premises the BTMC successfully maintains an environment of cleanliness, orderliness, and peace that is totally in keeping with the sacred nature of the shrine which remains open 24 hours every day of the week. Some visitor control measures are exercised such as provision of separate activity areas within the premises to diffuse pilgrim congestion and crowding around Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree. These control facilities are a Meditation Garden, separate upper and lower circumambulation pathways, gardens, and open areas adjoining the temple that provide additional meditation or active prayer space. However, due to the limited space within the Mahabodhi Temple premises, these facilities can never be sufficient to diffuse massive crush of pilgrim arrivals during festivals.

Interpretation: Interpretative signage within the Mahabodhi Temple precinct and surroundings remain at a rudimentary level, still awaiting the improvement requested by the World Heritage Committee. On the other hand, all Buddhist pilgrims arriving at Mahabodhi Temple are fully aware of the religious and cultural significance of each element within the holy shrine precinct. Therefore in-depth interpretation may not be an urgent need for the pilgrims’ sake but would be a definite help to the few non-Buddhists visiting Mahabodhi Temple.

Follow-up measures to Committee Decisions

Linking with Planning authorities and development Plans The Chief Secretary down to regional civil administration have realized and assured the logical and practical linkage of the greater development activities to the World Heritage property. However, there had been confusions over the development plan and the

Management plan prepared by HUDCO for the property. In particular, the Management plan has been prepared on the basis of a potential future ‘WH property’ boundaries and a Buffer Zone all done arbitrarily with little consideration to the nominated property boundaries. Misunderstanding and confusion exist among all stakeholders regarding the World Heritage boundary and buffer zone which should be the basis for linking with greater development of plans of the area due to lack of in-depth consultation among all parties. During stakeholder consultations, the following concerns were raised:

Background: Boundaries of the Mahabodhi Temple precinct remain as defined in the World Heritage document; BTMC clearly remains as the management authority within this precinct; confusion exists with stakeholders regarding the Buffer Zone;

Confusion over exact location of boundaries and different levels of protection in the Property and Buffer Zone;

Misconception has arisen from a coloured map (arbitrary drawn) included in the Management plan which has no legal basis.

That the proposed 50 and 100 meter radius around the Property boundary is totally unrealistic to the existing social and economic conditions of the Bodh Gaya settlement;

Misconception by stakeholders exists that World Heritage is restrictive, anti development and repressive;

Due to lack of community consultation, the proposed Master Plan was misunderstood and feared as overly limiting since it stipulated expropriation leading to loss of private property that owners understandably refused to give up;

Obviously, a change in attitude towards the Buffer Zone is necessary among all stakeholders (BTMC, government authorities, and community) to achieve concurrence in redefining Buffer Zone boundaries, and to reach consensus on zoning and land use regulations, building and height restrictions;

State Government of Bihar authorities are aware of the World Heritage values and committed to protect them in the planning process and consultations to be undertaken together with State planning authorities regarding Buffer Zone provisions; results shall be submitted by November 2011;

Based on these boundaries, planning authorities will be able to work on linking the Management plan with regional development plans and activities as discussed the Chief Secretary and the regional staff. Also, linked to this for consideration is the relationship with the surroundings outside temple precinct which deserves some discussion,

In contrast to the orderliness and aura of peace within the shrine, the ambiance outside the walled temple compound is the total opposite. Shops and souvenir stalls line the walkway and entrance plaza to the temple. Hawkers peddling souvenirs add to crowded conditions.

Being outside the Mahabodhi Temple boundary and no longer within BTMC jurisdiction, improvement of this area falls within the scope of Bodh Gaya area management authorities, which has introduced regulatory measures for souvenir sellers in the open plaza.

Responding to the request of the Committee to regulate and diffuse activity at the plaza leading to the temple precinct entrance, two clusters of souvenir stalls were recently constructed in the Buffer Zone at a distance away from the property. They were built to serve as alternate shopping areas for pilgrims and guests at new hotels expected to be constructed nearby, these newly completed facilities are still unoccupied. There is a need to architecturally ‘soften’ the impersonal feel of the cluster of concrete structures whose appearance is uninviting. Their character could be made more friendly and inviting through improved landscaping, addition of outdoor trellises and covered walkways, and planting of full-grown trees.

An even larger contrast exists on the main road immediately outside of the north fence of the temple precinct where strong development pressure threatens and congested urban environment that stands out against the tranquility of Mahabodhi Temple. The narrow, unpaved road behind the temple wall is a major commercial strip filled with small shops and hawkers selling everyday necessities – dining and cooking utensils, butcher shops, vegetable stalls, cloth and tailoring shops, home appliances, school supplies, and video shops, etc – essentials required for the daily lives of the Bodh Gaya community. Behind the main street, narrower residential lanes fan out into a densely populated neighborhood whose garbage, sanitation, and infrastructure facilities are all inadequate. People spill out of overcrowded dwellings into the lanes and streets. The short distance between the temple precinct and the banks of the Nirinjana River, located in this congested quarter of Bodh Gaya, is crowded with small shops, people and hawkers who congest the narrow unpaved lanes. Should the Nirinjana River bank be linked with Mahabodhi Temple, massive redevelopment is required to improve the walk marking Lord Buddha’s path from the river to the temple.

 

Cultural Landscape Issues 

The World Heritage Committee has requested Bodh Gaya authorities to consider linking the sites outside of the temple precinct associated with the enlightenment of the Lord Buddha for nomination as a single, unified cultural landscape. However, the urban congestion existing in the Buffer Zone (and outside) area immediately to the north of the temple precinct where a number of sites associated with the Lord Buddha, which were once in a bucolic rural area during his times, are today located in an urban setting. The area surrounding each of the series of holy sites is overpopulated, neglected, and plagued with the same inadequate refuse collection, sanitary, and infrastructure facilities. Tanks associated with the Lord Buddha that once supplied clean water to residents are now severely polluted. Ideally and logically, all sites within the Buffer Zone associated with the Lord Buddha should be fully documented, grouped together, and re-nominated as a single cultural landscape that reinforces the values of Mahabodhi Temple as suggested by an earlier Mission to the property.

However, existing political, stakeholder, and economic realities make the future management of the proposed consolidated area unwieldy. The proposed cultural landscape area is outside of the BTMC mandate. Therefore, the nomination process and subsequent management passes on to the purview of Bodh Gaya authorities whose priority is to resolve pressing issues regarding re-establishment of boundaries, determining zoning and management for the larger Buffer Zone in close consultation with stakeholders, and improving infrastructure. Instead of the cultural landscape approach, a serial nomination may be considered that nominates a series of small properties, their shared association with the Lord Buddha as the link uniting all the properties together as one. Each property shall be protected by its own Buffer Zone. Management responsibility shall be for a series of smaller areas that are easier to manage instead of a large area designated as a cultural landscape. The serial nomination approach appears to be more feasible, in tune with present political, social, economic, and site management realities and appears to be the approach that will achieve the much- needed protection of the very significant cluster of sites outside the temple precinct. In any event, this also depends on the priorities for the national government that deals with nominations

Strengthening legal protection and Mahabodhi Temple as a National Monument

Consultation with BTMC, the State Government of Bihar, and ASI led to the commitment by the State Government of Bihar to act on the requests of BTMC and Bodh Gaya authorities in providing all conservation and maintenance measures necessary for the property. The legal framework that allows the State of Bihar to intervene and assist Mahabodhi Temple exists through the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. This is currently running well.

Declaring Mahabodhi Temple as a National Monument requires establishment of a new set of legal framework that transfers authority to the national government, legislation that could take some time before approval. Furthermore, should Mahabodhi Temple transfer to National Monument status, the mandate transfers all management to ASI, a responsibility that ASI officials indicated that they were ill prepared to undertake due to the present load of monuments under their care and their inadequate budget. ASI suggested that it would be best to continue the present arrangement of BTMC contracting ASI for specific conservation services on an “as and when required” basis. Under such an arrangement, BTMC, as a paying client of ASI, does not fall in the budget queue for ASI services, as all nationally listed monuments do. Furthermore, ASI pointed out that it has no expertise in maintaining the living heritage aspect of Mahabodhi Temple since their proficiency is focused on monument conservation. Regarding improvement of existing Site Management procedures, the pragmatic approach was taken of strengthening and building up existing mechanisms and working within legal framework already in place through the State of Bihar in order to achieve quicker results rather than going through the time-consuming process of introducing new management mechanisms and legal framework required by the change of status to National Monument listing.

Due to its presence in the BTMC Expert Advisory Committee, the State of Bihar authorities are directly involved with the Mahabodhi Temple issues, with its existing budget and technical resources, the State of Bihar can respond more quickly to the conservation needs without having to respond to another layer of bureaucracy that would be brought about by National Monument listing. Discussed during consultation with BTMC, State Government of Bihar, and ASI were the following:

BTMC remains in charge of Mahabodhi Temple Complex as mandated and empowered by the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949.

The Expert Advisory Committee Chaired by the District Magistrate provides the direct link with the State Government of Bihar, who therefore will always be aware of and be able to assist in all issues regarding Mahabodhi Temple.

The Chief Secretary of the State Government committed to strengthening BTMC conservation capacity, and providing conservation assistance through linking BTMC with technical personnel, conservation programs, and resources presently available in the State Government.

State Government of Bihar committed to increase its direct participation in Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodh Gaya Buffer Zone through inclusion of all planning and infrastructure requirements needed to protect the heritage values in the Development Plan being prepared by the Department of Urban Development.

Infrastructure and other requirements such as sanitation, shall be coursed through the appropriate Departments within the State Government for implementation; furthermore, the infrastructure needs of Bodh Gaya shall from now on be included in State planning and budgetary priorities for implementation by the appropriate department of the State Government.

Heritage and conservation requirements of Mahabodhi Temple will be coursed for implementation through the State Department of Culture whose technical expertise and budget shall be made available for approved projects.

ASI may be called upon by BTMC whenever needed to undertake specific conservation projects on an “as and when required” status following their present arrangement.

It was agreed that State level legal and conservation protection for Mahabodhi Temple is more practical and expedient since adequate technical expertise can be provided by the State Government which is directly linked to BTMC through its representative’s Chairmanship of the Expert Advisory Council. Therefore elevation of Mahabodhi Temple to National Monument status is not necessary.

 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Having examined the state of conservation of the World Heritage property of Mahabodhi Temple Complex ad Bodh Gaya, as well as the institutional and legal framework within which the property is conserved and managed, the mission concluded that the State Party of India have made efforts to respond to the concerns expressed and requests by the World Heritage Committee. The mission, however noted that a number of important conservation and management issues remain to be addressed to ensure a better protection and management of the World Heritage property and its buffer zone.

In general terms, the Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya World Heritage property appears to be retaining its Outstanding Universal Value. The Temple compound seems to be large enough to physically accommodate the day-to-day small changes that have occurred so far from the religious activities. Regular maintenance work and restorations being carried out, while demonstrating the State Party and Site Management Authority’s strong and positive intention to preserve the property, nevertheless further enhancement is required to ensure the authenticity and the integrity of the property is retained.

The mission would nevertheless underline the conservation issues for the property from a broader context in view of the proposed extension of the property by the State Party as a Cultural Landscape. A strategic vision for the protection and management of the property as a living heritage site is needed to ensure a value-based approach for urban and rural planning, heritage protection and management. The mission witnessed some of the infrastructure development projects around the property, which were being implemented at a fast pace, and noted with some concern, for the potential pipeline development projects under discussion and/or planning.

The Mission’s findings have resulted in the following concluding recommendations. These recommendations have been based on the assessment of the degree to which the State Party has addressed the conservation issues identified by the World Heritage Committee, as well as other general policy directions and observations:

Concluding Recommendation concerning a strategic vision

5.1 A shared, balanced vision is required, which integrates heritage conservation and community development needs for the short and longer term. Considering the future extension of the World Heritage property to include other component parts in the Cultural Landscape, a co-ordinated long term vision for the conservation and management of Bogh Gaya as a living heritage site needs to be elaborated through meaningful stakeholder consultation, where a holistic values-based approach on urban and rural development and World Heritage protection and management is adopted by all concerned, especially the citizens and religious communities of Bodh Gaya.

Concluding Recommendation on property boundary and Buffer Zone

5.2. As discussed and agreed by the Chief Secretary and his staff during the discussions, a new holistic approach with planning authorities and relevant stakeholders are required to commence work who will initially work with existing Boundaries of the property and define a Buffer Zone for the property. The overall management of the World Heritage property will be integrated into the planning process. This should therefore address some of the following issues with regard to boundaries and Buffer

Zone: a) Redefinition of boundaries with stakeholder consultations for greater understanding and participation for all parties to jointly determine all requirements within Buffer

Zone; b) to reverse the misconception that World Heritage is restrictive, introduce a proactive vision of World Heritage and c) Necessary regulatory measures for the Buffer Zone should be established and implemented as a matter of priority. Based on the new Buffer Zone and considering the existing boundaries, Management Plan should be revised. If necessary, as stated by the Chief Secretary, action can be taken to strengthen the provisions of the BTMC Act to provide more power.

Regional planning authorities should revisit their plans based on the new boundaries and the Management plan with a view to help maintain the Outstanding Universal Value, to reduce any future pressures, to facilitate the pilgrims and to bring benefits of the place to the local community.

It was agreed that Buffer Zone planning will be undertaken under the lead of the Bihar State Development Commissioner’s Office who will conduct consultations with all stakeholders to achieve a shared sense of strategic direction among all parties.

The revised plan is to be submitted by November 2011 to ASI in the framework ofthe on-going second cycle of Periodic Reporting for Asia and the Pacific region.

 

Concluding Recommendation on Management Planning

5.3 Based on the Management Plan and also the revised regional development plan, establish more amenities, introduce other attractions within the Buffer Zone to diffuse heavy pilgrim load on Mahabodhi Temple, especially during festival periods. Also measures need to be taken to improve facilities and amenities (lodging, food, transportation, etc) for pilgrims at all levels. 

5.4 As part of the Management planning process, conduct a year long study of the patterns of pilgrimages to understand pressures, if any, at any given time that can affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and to develop strategies to mitigate them Re-nominating the property as a Cultural Landscape

5.5 In fact, the present urban congestion prevent the consolidation of the large area around Mahabodhi Temple as a Buddhist Cultural Landscape to be nominated for World Heritage listing. However, a serial nomination where a number of sites associated with the Lord Buddha is a more feasible approach. Moreover, the Cultural Landscape nomination is not in the priorities of the State Government of Bihar authorities whose focus is to improve infrastructure in Bodh Gaya and to complete the planning of the Buffer Zone.

Therefore, the proposal of re-nominating the property as a Cultural Landscape could be left to the national authorities for further studies and future actions.

5.6 It appears that greater emphasis on coordination and communication between amongst different stakeholders, including the religious community is lacking. A clearer understanding on the requirements for World Heritage protection and management should be ensured while putting forward management structure for the property. Strengthening the BTMC expertise on the understanding of the OUV and the means and ways to maintain it would be essential. At the same time, ASI could have a regular liaising with the BTMC and its Expert Committee on Conservation. BTMC can be encouraged to apply for International assistance through the World Heritage Fund.

5.7 Enhance, particularly at municipal/Panchayat level in Bodh Gaya, awareness building in relation to World Heritage conservation processes, internationally recognized conservation standards and procedures, as well as timely information dissemination to the general public and citizens. There is a need to improve ways of information sharing and communication on conservation programmes and the World

Heritage property through better publicity and other promotional activities on the importance of this sacred World Heritage site

Enhancing the Management system, public communication and outreach

5.8 The BTMC deserves commendation for the good overall state of conservation of Mahabodhi Temple that is under its direction by virtue of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. ASI has likewise done well in maintaining the temple. Although adequate measures have been taken by BTMC to decongest pilgrim traffic centered at the main Temple and Bodhi Tree by providing dispersal areas within the limited area of the complex, management of the extreme number of pilgrim arrivals during festivals held at special times of the year is difficult. Providing secondary pilgrimage destinations located in the Buffer Zone will help to further disperse pilgrims and to ease heavy visitor pressure on Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree.

 

The ex-officio appointment of the District Magistrate of Bodh Gaya as Member of the Expert Advisory Committee and BTMC Chairman establishes close links with the State Government of Bihar whose Chief Secretary pledged his full support to maintain the property’s OUV through establishing a unified approach in aligning all State programs, budgets, and projects with the needs of Mahabodhi Temple, pilgrims, and the Bodh Gaya stakeholder community

 

Concluding recommendation on legal provision for the protection of the site

5.9 In consultation with BTMC, the State Government of Bihar, and ASI led to the commitment by the State Government of Bihar to act on the requests of BTMC and Bodh Gaya authorities, to provide all conservation and maintenance measures for the property. The State of Bihar has the necessary legal instruments to intervene and assist Mahabodhi Temple exists through the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949. This is currently running well. 

The declaration of Mahabodhi Temple as a National Monument required the establishment of a new set of legal framework that transfers authority to the national government. However, should Mahabodhi Temple be transferred to National Monument status, the mandate transfers all management to ASI, a responsibility that ASI officials indicated they are significantly under resourced to assume a leading role. ASI suggested that it would be best to continue the present arrangement of BTMC contracting ASI for specific conservation services on an “as and when required” basis. Under such an arrangement, BTMC, as a paying client of ASI, does not fall into the national budget queue for ASI services. Furthermore ASI pointed out that it has no expertise in maintaining the living heritage aspect of Mahabodhi Temple. In regard, to the improvement of the existing Site Management procedures, the pragmatic approach was taken to strengthen and build up existing mechanisms and work within the legal framework already put into place through the State of Bihar. To ensure more satisfactory results rather than going through the time-consuming process of introducing new management mechanisms and legal framework required by the change of status to National Monument listing.

Concluding Recommendations for capacity-building and training

5.10 UNESCO Office in New Delhi, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and, ICCROM will fully support the relevant Indian authorities and BTMC for the organization of training activities to upgrade and enhance capacity of the professionals and policy makers responsible for the protection of the World Heritage property and its surrounding area. Such training could include urban planning issues for living World Heritage sites, a refresher course on international conservation norms could possibly take place at national level with the support of UNESCO New Delhi or ICOMOS India.

General concluding recommendations

5.11 In general terms, and despite some negative incidents and development pressures, the World Heritage property of Mahabodhi Temple at Godh Gaya has remained itsauthenticity and integrity. It may therefore be concluded that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is still being maintained by the State Party of India.

The property should remain on the World Heritage List, while the State Party is strongly urged to take effective steps to enhance co-ordination through existing institutional frameworks in the national and State Governments to mitigate any future threats which may arise through urban and rural development planned and implemented without consideration of the living heritage site’s needs.

Information awareness raising, capacity building, outreach in the decision making process are also strongly recommended as present insufficient levels of these three issues have resulted in unfortunate misunderstanding between stakeholders and the general public, including local citizens, loss of financial resources, as well as negative impact on the World Heritage property

 

ANNEXES

 

Annex I: Terms of Reference

Reactive Monitoring Mission to Mahabodhi Temple Complex at

Bodh Gaya, India (21-27 February 2011)

In accordance to Decision 34 COM 7B.70 made by World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, July 2010), the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission should carry out the following tasks:

Assess the state of conservation of the property and the progress made at the site to the date, by both national and local authorities, in the implementation of corrective measures.

Hold consultations with Indian authorities and the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the committee recommendations;

 

Hold consultation with the relevant authorities to consider re-nominating the property as a cultural landscape, as already suggested at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), to enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and protect the character of the important landscape directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site;

Evaluate the functionality and sustainability of the management system and decision making mechanisms for the property, including management agencies at the provincial and municipal level;

Explore the possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;

Examine the progress made in the implementation of previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee, e.g. 31 COM 7B.82, 30 COM 7B.64 and 29 COM 7B.52

On the basis of the foregoing findings and in close cooperation with ASI, make recommendations to the Government of the India and the World Heritage Committee for the future conservation and management of the Property;

Prepare a joint report incorporating the above findings and recommendations of the Reactive Monitoring Mission for review by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session. The report should follow the attached format and should be submitted to the Extract from the Decision adopted at the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee (Brasília, 2010)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (India) (C1056 rev)

Decision: 34 COM 7B.70

The World Heritage Committee,

8. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B,

9. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.82, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

10. Notes with satisfaction that the State Party has confirmed that all development activities coming within the approved “Vision 2005-2031 Development Plan” are being guided by the provisions of the Site Management Plan for the property and encourages the State Party to continue the implementation of the Site Management Plan and the Development Plan 2005-2031;

11. Reiterates its request to the State Party to consider re-nominating the property as a cultural landscape, as already suggested at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), to enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and protect the character of the important landscape directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site;

12. Requests the State Party to explore the possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;

13. Also requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission to the property in 2011 with the aim of discussing with the State Party and the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) the progress made at the site to date, as well as to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the above recommendations;

14. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre on 1 February 2012 an updated report on the state of conservation and progress made in responding to the requests made above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.

 

Annex II: Itinerary and programme of the mission

Reactive Monitoring Mission Schedule

21st Feb 2011 Arrival of Experts in Delhi

22nd Feb 2011 DAY 1: Briefing Meeting at ASI Headquarters

Morning

10:00 AM – 11:30 AM Meeting with ASI Officials at the ASI Headquarters, Janpath,

New Delhi

Agenda:

1. Assess the state of conservation of the property and the progress made at the site to the date, by both national authorities in the implementation of corrective measures.

2. Hold consultations with national authorities to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the committee recommendations;

3. Hold consultation with the national authorities to consider re-nominating the property as a cultural landscape;

4. The possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;

5. The progress made in the implementation of previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee;

6. To get updated on the progress made by the State Party on the implementation of the Management Plan. 

Participants:

1. Dr Gautam Sengupta, DG ASI (availability status to be confirmed)

2. Mr Praveen Srivastava, ADG, ASI

3. Dr B R Mani, Joint Director General, ASI

4. Mr Janhwij Sharma, Director Conservation, ASI

5. Mr Feng JING, WHC

6. Mr Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM

7. Mr Augusto Villalon, ICOMOS

8. Mr Armoogum Parsuramen, Director UNESCO Delhi

9. Mr Takahiko Makino, Programme Specialist Culture

10. Ms Paromita Desarkar, Project Manager, Culture

11. Dr R K Safaya, Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd

 

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM Lunch

12:30 PM Departure for Airport

2:40 PM Departure for Bodhgaya

4:10 PM Arrival at Patna Airport (Secretary, BTMC and Superintendent Archaeologist, ASI, Patna Circle will receive the delegates)

6: 00 PM Arrival Bodh Gaya and proceed to Hotel Royal Residency,

23 Feb 2011: DAY 2: Site Visit (Temple Complex) and Stakeholder Meetings, Bodh Gaya

9:30 AM- 12:00 Noon. Site Visit to the WH Bodh Gaya Temple Complex

12: 00 Noon. Return to Hotel Royal Residency.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Lunch at hotel.

3:00 PM – 6 PM Stakeholder meeting

 Agenda:

1. Assess the state of conservation of the property and the progress made at the site to the date by local authorities in the implementation of corrective measures;

2. Hold consultations with authorities to clarify the feasibility and possible modalities of implementation of the committee recommendations;

3. Hold consultation with the authorities to consider re nominating the property as a cultural landscape;

4. The possibility of improving the legal protection of the property by declaring the property a national monument;

5. The progress made in the implementation of previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee;

6. To get updated on the progress made by the State Party on the implementation of the Management Plan for the property.

Participants:

– Mr Feng JING, WHC

-Mr Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM

-Mr Augusto Villalon, ICOMOS

-Mr Takahiko Makino, Programme Specialist Culture

-Mr. Janhwij Sharma, Director, Conservation & World Heritage, ASI.

-Mr. S.K. Manjul, Superintendent Archeologist, ASI Patna Circle Office.

-Mrs. Radhika Dhumal, ASI, Delhi.

-Ms. Bandana Preyashi, District Magistrate, Gaya cum Chairman, BTMC.

-Mr. Nangzey Dorjee, Member Secretary, BTMC.

-Ven. Arya Nagarjun Surei Sasari, Member, BTMC

-Ven. Bhadant Gyaneshwar Mahathera, Member, BTMC.

-Shri Mahanth Sri Sudarshan Giri, Mahant, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. (Smt) Kumud Verma, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. (Smt.) Mahashweta Maharathi, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. Radhakrishna Mishra, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Member, BTMC.

-Ven. Bhikkhu Chalinda, Chief Monk, Mahabodhi Temple.

-Shri Rai Madan Kishore, (Special invitee).

-Shri Sohaib Ahmed, ADM, Gaya.

-Shri Dharmendra Thakur, Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Gaya.

6:00 -6:45 P.M. Multimedia Film show on Life of Buddha and Mahabodhi

6:45 P.M. Return to Hotel.

24 February 2011 DAY 3: Site Visit and Stakeholder Meeting, Bodh Gaya

9:30 AM- 1:00 PM Site Visit: Around the Core and Buffer areas of the Temple complex.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Lunch

3:00 PM – 6 PM Stakeholder Meeting

Agenda:

1. Assess the state of conservation and management of the site and the progress made at the site to the date by local authorities in the implementation of corrective measures;

– Concerns of the core and buffer zone around the inscribed property including encroachments, impact of increased visitor flow to the site etc.

– Current status of Master Plan, Zonal and City Planning for the Core and Buffer areas and its impact on the World Heritage Site and the overall Cultural landscape.

– Status of the implementation of the development control rules and regulations and other provisions of the Site Management Plan into the Development Plan

2. Continued consultation with the authorities to consider renominating the property as a cultural landscape; as already suggested at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), to enhance the Outstanding Universal Value and protect the character of the important landscape directly associated with both the life and wanderings of Buddha and the inscribed Mahabodhi Temple site;

3. Issues involving legal protection of the property, its core and buffer areas;

4. Evaluate the functionality and sustainability of the management system and decision-making mechanisms for the property and its core and buffer, including management agencies at the provincial and municipal level;

5. Examine the progress made in the implementation of previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee, e.g. 31 COM 7B.82, 30 COM 7B.64 and 29 COM 7B.52

 Participants:

-Mr Feng JING, WHC

-Mr Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM

-Mr Augusto Villalon, ICOMOS

-Mr Takahiko Makino, Programme Specialist Culture

-Mr. Janhwij Sharma, Director, Conservation & World Heritage, ASI.

-Mrs. Radhika Dhumal, Consultant Conservation Architect, ASI, Delhi

-Mr. S.K. Manjul, Superintendent Archeologist, ASI Patna Circle Office.

-Mrs. Radhika Dhumal, ASI, Delhi.

-Ms. Bandana Preyashi, District Magistrate, Gaya cum Chairman, BTMC.

-Mr. Nangzey Dorjee, Member Secretary, BTMC.

-Ven. Arya Nagarjun Surei Sasari, Member, BTMC

-Ven. Bhadant Gyaneshwar Mahathera, Member, BTMC.

-Shri Mahanth Sri Sudarshan Giri, Mahant, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. (Smt) Kumud Verma, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. (Smt.) Mahashweta Maharathi, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. Radhakrishna Mishra, Member, BTMC.

-Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Member, BTMC.

-Ven. Bhikkhu Chalinda, Chief Monk, Mahabodhi Temple.

-Shri Sohaib Ahmed, ADM, Gaya.

-Shri Dharmendra Thakur, Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Gaya.

-Smt. Preeti Singh, Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Bodhgaya.

-Shri. Dinesh Singh, Vice Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Bodhgaya,

-Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat.

-Shri Janardhan Prasad, Circle Officer, Bodhgaya,

-Ven. Tenzin Lama, President, International Buddhist Council, (IBC) Bodhgaya

-Ven. Aniruddha Thera, Ex President, IBC.

-Ven. Bikkhu Pragyadeep, Executive Member, IBC

-Shri. Kiran Lama, Executive Member, IBC

-Shri Sanjay Singh, President, Hotel Association, Bodhgaya.

-Mr. Ratnamani Sanjeev, City S.P., Gaya

6:00 PM Meeting with the Commissioner at his residence

7:00 PM Return to Hotel

8: 00 PM Dinner by BTMC in honour of UNESCO World Heritage delegates.

 

25 Feb 2011 DAY 4: Final Debriefing meeting with various Stakeholders

8:30 AM – 11:30 AM Travel to Patna by Road

12:00 AM- 01:00 PM Meeting with Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar

Agenda:

1. To present and discuss currents situation of the World heritage Site of Bodh Gaya and seek the State Government’s support to address issues and concerns of the site and its potential re-nomination as a ‘Cultural

Landscape’.

Participants:

1. Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar.

2. Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Bihar.

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Culture, Government of Bihar.

4. Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar.

5. Mr Jing Feng, WHC

6. Mr Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM

7. Mr Augusto Villalon, ICOMOS

8. Mr Takahiko Makino, Programme Specialist Culture

9. Mr. Janhwij Sharma, Director, Conservation & World Heritage, ASI.

10. Mr. S.K. Manjul, Superintendent Archoelogist, ASI Patna Circle Office

11. Mrs. Radhika Dhumal, Consultant Conservation Architect, ASI, Delhi

12. Ms. Bandana Preyashi, District Magistrate, Gaya cum Chairperson, BTMC.

13. Mr. Nangzey Dorjee, Member Secretary, BTMC..

26 Feb 2011 DAY 5: Internal Working Meeting in UNESCO New Delhi Office

27 Feb 2011 Departure from Delhi

28 Feb 2011 Feng JING meeting with DG ASI

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Lunch at Hotel Maurya, Patna

4:40 PM Departure from Patna to Delhi

 Annex III: Compositon of the mission team

The Joint UNESCO WHC/ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission was carried out to Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (Indoa) from 21 to 27 February 2011. The mission team is composed of the following persons:

1. Mr Feng JING, Chief a.i, Asia and the Pacific Section, UNESCO World Heritage Centre (Paris, France); 

2. Mr Augusto Villalon, Conservation Architect, representing the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS International);

3. Dr Gamini Wijesuriya, Project Manager of Site Unit, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM, Rome, Italy)

4. Mr Tahakiko Makino, Programme Specialist for Culture, UNESCO Office in New Delhi, Indi

 

REPORT 2012 … http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/251

State of Conservation (SOC)

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Lack of co-ordinated and integrated management system;

b) Loss of character of the cultural landscape directly associated with the property and its outstanding universal value;

c) Lack of protection under national legislation.

Current conservation issues

From 21 to 27 February 2011 a joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS monitoring mission visited the property, as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010). The mission report and its recommendations are available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/36COM/.

A report on the state of conservation was provided by the State Party on 1 February 2012. This report addresses the continuing efforts towards the definition of a buffer zone, and improvement of management cooperation, in particular with regard to pilgrim management and protection of the landscape setting. It further discusses the Committee’s requests to re-nominate the property as a cultural landscape and to increase its legal protection by listing it as a national monument.

a) State of Conservation of the property, in particular the Bodhi Tree

The State Party reports that the overall state of conservation of the property is satisfactory and that the Bodhi Tree had been attested as sound and healthy, following the latest report of the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India,in January 2012. The joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS monitoring mission equally confirmed the satisfactory overall state of conservation and commended the State Party for its efforts, but at the same time also noted that the landscape setting remains vulnerable.

b) Buffer zone, setting and re-nomination of the property as a cultural landscape

Following the report of the State Party, the potential re-nomination of the property as a cultural landscape caused difficulties, predominantly as a result of the immense development pressure in the broader urban and rural setting. The State Party therefore proposes to further study the possibility of extending the property as a serial site, to include several other sites associated to the life of the Lord Buddha.

The joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS mission shared the concerns of the State Party with regard to a potential re-nomination as a cultural landscape and recommended adopting a two step approach. As the first step, the State Party would, on the basis of the present boundaries of the property, define an appropriate buffer zone and establish regulations for its protection as a matter of priority. Following this, further investigations concerning the feasibility of a serial extension to the property would be conducted, aimed at conceptualizing this serial approach as an additional means of wider landscape protection.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the World Heritage Committee consider this approach, but note that once the boundaries for the new buffer zone are established, strict development regulations would need to be established and regional development plans would need to be revisited. They further recommend conducting capacity-building activities for all local stakeholders aimed at raising awareness for World Heritage management requirements and reversing the apparent misconception that World Heritage status is an obstacle to local development.

c) Site and visitor management

The Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) is the responsible authority for the site management, and it works in close cooperation with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) whenever necessary. The State Party report outlines that the central management concern is visitor pressures from the steadily growing number of pilgrims. In a recent peak, the property was visited by more than 300,000 pilgrims within a mere 15 days on the occasion of the Kalachakra Initiation held at the beginning of 2012.

The February 2011 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM monitoring mission recommended that the State Party conduct a one-year study of pilgrimage patterns and visitor behavior to better understand the pressures and develop possible mitigation strategies. From this study, a comprehensive pilgrim management strategy should be developed.

d) Improving legal protection at the national level

As discussed with the State Party during the February 2011 mission and following a careful analysis of the pros and cons of a legal protection as a national monument, the State Party requested to retain the property’s special legal status, which is protected under the Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the current management coordination by the BTMC and its cooperation with the ASI and the State Government of Bihar on the basis of this Act are indeed successful. They further accept the position that the status of a national monument would cause legal and financial obstacles to the use and function of the temple as a living pilgrimage site. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies therefore support the pragmatic approach currently applied and suggest to strengthen and build up existing mechanisms and work within the legal framework already put into place through the State Government of Bihar so as to provide BTMC formalized status within the strategic management framework and Management Plan of the property.  

Analysis and Conclusion

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies commend the State Party for the efforts made and the satisfactory state of conservation of the property, including the sacred Bodhi Tree. They concur with the recommendations of the February 2011 mission that the landscape setting is still vulnerable and requires urgent protection through a balanced vision which integrates the requirements of conservation, pilgrimage and community development, and through the formal designation of an adequate buffer zone for the immediate setting as well as adequate protective regulations for the proposed buffer zone as a matter of priority.

As a mid-term strategy, a serial extension of the property to include other sites with outstanding associations to the life of the Lord Buddha could be envisaged. Based on the established buffer zone, the Management Plan and the regional development plans need to be revised. They would suggest that the State Party take effective steps to enhance coordination through existing institutional frameworks in the national and State governments to mitigate any future threats which may arise through uncontrolled or unplanned urban and rural development that may affect the property’s Outstanding Universal Value. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies support the pragmatic approach currently applied by the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) to retain the property’s special legal status, which is protected under the Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949. Meanwhile, they recommend the State Party to conduct capacity-building activities for all local stakeholders concerned to raise awareness for World Heritage management requirements. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies further recommend conducting a study on pilgrimage patterns to identify the most significant pressures and develop mitigation strategies. 

 

Decision

36COM7B.61

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B,

2.   Recalling Decision 34 COM 7B.70, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3.   Acknowledges the efforts made by the State Party to address the conservation issues at the property; and notesthe pragmatic approach currently applied by the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) to retain its special legal status, under the Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949;

4.   Also notes the results of the February 2011 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission, endorses its recommendations on the satisfactory condition of the property, including the sacred Bodhi Tree, and requests the State Party to:

a)  Ensure urgent protection of the vulnerable setting and the wider landscape through a balanced vision, which integrates conservation, pilgrimage and community development,

b)  Formally designate an adequate buffer zone for the immediate setting of the property and appropriate protection for the wider landscape,

c)  Identify, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies a two-step approach, firstly, an adequate buffer zone for the protection of the immediate setting as well as a regulatory framework for the protection of the wider  landscape, following as second step, a serial extension of the property to include other sites with outstanding associations to the life of Lord Buddha,

d)  Revise the Management Plan and the regional development plan in light of the proposed buffer zone boundaries and regulations; and conduct a study of pilgrimage patterns and visitor behaviour to identify the most significant pressures and develop, on this basis, a comprehensive visitor/pilgrims management strategy,

e)  Undertake capacity-building activities for all local stakeholders concerned to raise awareness of World Heritage management requirements;

5.   Encourages the State Party to submit the designated buffer zone as a minor boundary modification;

6.   Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, a report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

 

AGAIN ANOTHER AT 2012 …. http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4722

Committee Decisions

36 COM 7B.61

Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya (India) (C1056 rev)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B,

2.   Recalling Decision 34 COM 7B.70, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3.   Acknowledges the efforts made by the State Party to address the conservation issues at the property; and notes the pragmatic approach currently applied by the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) to retain its special legal status, under the Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949;

4.   Also notes the results of the February 2011 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission, endorses its recommendations on the satisfactory condition of the property, including the sacred Bodhi Tree, and requests the State Party to:

a)  Ensure urgent protection of the vulnerable setting and the wider landscape through a balanced vision, which integrates conservation, pilgrimage and community development,

b)  Formally designate an adequate buffer zone for the immediate setting of the property and appropriate protection for the wider landscape,

c)  Identify, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies a two-step approach, firstly, an adequate buffer zone for the protection of the immediate setting as well as a regulatory framework for the protection of the wider  landscape, following as second step, a serial extension of the property to include other sites with outstanding associations to the life of Lord Buddha,

d)  Revise the Management Plan and the regional development plan in light of the proposed buffer zone boundaries and regulations; and conduct a study of pilgrimage patterns and visitor behaviour to identify the most significant pressures and develop, on this basis, a comprehensive visitor/pilgrims management strategy,

e)  Undertake capacity-building activities for all local stakeholders concerned to raise awareness of World Heritage management requirements;

5.   Encourages the State Party to submit the designated buffer zone as a minor boundary modification;

6.   Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, a report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

 

REPORT OF 2013 .. http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4964

WHY BUDDHIST LEADERS ARE HIDING ???

COPY THE PHOTO, READ IT AND SHARE IT, STAND FOR LORD BUDDHA

OPEN LETTER TO BUDDHIST WORLD TO CREATE AWARENESS

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Namo Buddha, I have no intension to harm anyone in any ways & means by this letter but some questions has risen into my mind since 2007 which I am trying to find out an answer. Those organizations think that it is a positive letter then please forward to every devotee to create awareness.

Here at below I am presenting some facts which you all must think from heart.

1. Every year minimum 20,000 Buddhist stays at Bodhgaya at the time of yearly Pujas from November to February. Among of them few thousands are from western world. Every year these westerners are carried out social project work of different masters in Bodhgaya and collected millions of dollars. These masters are also carried out different meditation courses too. My question is what happened from March to October with the social projects & meditation courses at Bodhgaya which they always starts from November to February ? Can anyone present infront of me 1-5 persons who attained all these meditation courses and who effected by one question which is hunting him/her every moment ( The question may be anything ) ? If not then what kind of meditation it is ?

2. If lord Buddha is your Father then what is your duty towards HIM ? If someone disrespect to your own father then will you be keep quite ? If someone abuse your daughter / wife then will you be keep quite ? If both the time not then why after watching huge corruption at Mahabodhi Temple of Bodhgaya and after Bodhi Tree cut off the 350 Millions Buddhist of the world were quite ? From where western devotees get energy for demonstrating protest rally at their respected country regarding Tibetan issue and even in Facebook, Twitter and web pages ? From where people of Nagpur get energy to demonstrate protest rally if someone disrespected Baba Shahab Ambedkar ? Why these western devotees give excuse of Indian Politics to address the Mahabodhi temple issue ? Why they are always talking about visa cancellation by the government of India ? Do they all think that if they visit Bodhgaya then they will meet with Lord Buddha ? Many westerns supported Medha Patekar agitation against Narmada Dam project at Gujarat so do the western supporters loose the Indian Visa ?

3. At 2006 in the month of July the Holy Bodhi Tree cut off issue flash in the media and 22 July, 2006 Principal Home Secretary of Bihar Afzal Amanullah accompanied with expert A. K. Singh from Patna Krisi Viswavidhalay to collect samples from Holy Bodhi Tree cut off portion for Lab Test. So where is that 1st test report ? Why Buddhist Organizations and individual Buddhist from India and abroad are sitting quite and not even asking Bihar government about the 1st Scientist Report to know the truth ? What is the standard of Love of Buddhist organizations for Buddha ? How they are claiming that they are lover of Buddha when no one stand for Lord Buddha and no one is taking interest to know what was happened with 2006 scientist report ? Why 100 Buddhist Temple of Bodhgaya always hide from my questions if they are honest ? When Mr. Kiran Lama the Secretary of International Buddhist Council will have time from his herbal body massage to think about burning issues of Bodhgaya Temple ?

4. At 2007 Arup Bramhachari filed case no. 850 / 2007 at CJM Court with evidence and Forest Research Institute, Dheradun proved by their report dated 28th June 2007 that Bodhi Tree in real manner was cut off at 2006. So who proved it a Hindu or a Buddhist ? Who is great a Hindu or Buddhist ? Why 350 millions Buddhist of the world were sleeping after knowing that the culprits chop the branches of the holy tree ? The sad fact is Sri Lankan President told lie along with India PM to the world. If someone rape your daughter then will you be keep quite in the same way as you are now ? Are you the Buddhist not double standard ? So in which manner you are Buddhist when you could not stand for your own Father Lord Buddha ?

5. How the leaders of Nagpur & Other parts of India have brain to stand to free “ Mahabodhi Temple ” from Hindus ? Why the Buddhist leaders from all over the world are quite when Ancient Spire ( canopy ) of Mahabodhi Temple changed by the Light of BuddhaDhamma Foundation International ( Dixey Family ) in the year 2010 ? Again at November 2013 the Ashoka Time Spire completely changed by the Royal Thai Family & Thai devotees ? So what kind of Buddhist you are ? And for your silence again Arup Bramhachari stood for Lord Budhha !!! Is it not the Hindus who stand for Lord Buddha and proved every issues ? The Bodhgaya Buddhist and Nagpur Buddhist will never talk about it because the Thai’s are pouring money like water to these poor Buddhist Organizations. So why it must be given to the hand of those who cannot stand to protect his own father’s property ?

6. Bhante Anand, Bhante Pragnasheel & Bhante Suresh Sasai lead the Mahabodhi Temple Free Movement in India and this group ruled 6 years the Mahabodhi Temple Management. So what they did for the Buddhist and for poor Buddhist of India ? Where is the 80 Lakhs rupees which Japanese devotees gave to Bhante Pragnasheel to build a hospital at Bodhgaya ( Bimal Sara Bhante brought this group ) ? How much real money collected at Kalchakra Puja when Bhnate Pragnasheel was secretary of Temple Management when more than 5 lakhs people were there ? Why not Bhante Suresh Sasai Ji file the case at Supreme Court to abolish 1949 act when his men Bhante Pragnasheel was secretary ? Why Bhante Suresh Sasai Ji and his party did not file corruption case in the court when they knows all ? Why the Buddhist Members did not give resign from the committee if Hindu Secretary is cheating ? Now N. Dorje is a Buddhist and Secretary. The Mahabodhi Temple Management Committee cross all limits of corruption so what the Buddhist world is doing ? ( look at audit report copy from http://www.swamiji1.wordpress.com ). How many protest rally organized by the Nagpur Buddhist brothers and sisters against the Mahabodhi Temple corruption ? How many letters Buddhist organizations all over the world wrote to Mahabodhi Temple Management regarding the corruption? If Bhante Anand have any evidence about anything then why he did not go to court ? Why the Buddhist brothers & sisters don’t give one rupee as a donation to fight the court cases ?

7. 6 million rupees Goal Ghar Market Complex ( Presently demolished by the government after the Mahabodhi temple bomb blast ) toilet corruption did by the Temple Committee Member Arbind Singh, Top Spire of Mahabodhi Temple changed by Light of Buddhadhamma Foundation International and Thai’s, Holy Bodhi Tree is sick and Forest Research Institute of Dehradun just saving the temple management by telling lies, 1.4 million rupees melted in the donation box by water licking, Huge foreign money not cashing since long time, 6-8 million rupees spent for members entertainment, 2.3 million rupees well equipped ambulance standing in the office are without using it for public and the originality of the temple had gone in the name of beautification. When 100 Buddhist Temple is there then why still all these temples never opened their door for poor Indian Buddhist at the Time of Buddhos Purnima so that Mothers and Sister do not force to do their morning activity in the open air and sleep whole day and night in the open air ? When all these Foreign Temples will stop telling “ Indians are not allowed ” ( residential area but no matter to enjoy the local poor girls !!! ) ? So tell me how you are calling yourself Buddhist when you can’t stand for your father even after above incident ?

This is my again humble plea to all that I have no intension to hurt anyone. I am just asking questions to you all and to think in deep manner to find out the answer and If I am wrong any where then please correct me.

Thanking you all, Namo Buddha

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji )
Root Institute Road, Bodhgaya, Gaya, Bihar – 824231
Contact No. 91- 8083339782
E-Mail – arupteresa@gmail.com, Web Page – http://www.swamiji1.wordpress.com
Facebook – Arup Bramhachari

THE MAIN CULPRITS OF MAHABODHI TEMPLE

From ages, every where there are some culprits those who are by brain game make fools to others ( so called human ) and the veil infront of every eyes is so worse that none can catch the game of the well dressed ( so called human ). Our Bodhgaya is the best example for it. It is not only Bodhgaya but go to any holy place in the world all are same like Bodhgaya. It is not a matter of Hindu or Buddhist or Christens or Muslim but all are same cheater who is cheating the almighty.

Now look at the Photos at below those who are cheating Lord Buddha.

The above photo is Mrs. Bandana Priyashi who was the Ex- District Magistrate of Gaya district. As per 1949 act of the Bodhgaya Temple Management, the district magistrate of Gaya will be the Chairman of the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee. This Mrs. Bandana Priyashi was a characterless lady. I have no interest what so ever what she was doing with IPS Vinay Kumar at private which is a extra material relation but It is a shame for the country like India that public pay’s salary to such characterless bureaucrat. Our culture is different then west.

As per law of Bodhgaya Temple Management if any bill is more than rupees 1000 ( 20 dollars ) then the Chairman ( DM of Gaya ) has to sign the bill for payment. So read the article “ Lord’s money washed away in Bodhgaya ” and asked yourself that what kind of bureaucrat she was when all the payment were sign by her ? She sign all the bills of Royal Residency but not all the bills of Sujata Hotel !!! Complains after complain with evidence but all goes into vain !!! 6 Millions rupees toilet corruption and after seeing all evidence she was deaf and blind. Top Spire of Mahabodhi Temple changed by the Light of Buddha Dhamma Foundation International, USA and even after evidence again she was deaf and blind !  This is called Indian bureaucrat !!!

Can you imagine this shameless bureaucrat used the best car of temple for govt. work and all the maintenance cost paid by the temple fund but not even once in a week she was able to cross 15 kms. to visit mahabodhi temple !!! The temple management paid huge money for her birthday party at Royal Residency Hotel, Bodhgaya. The Buddhists of Bodhgaya are faggots ( Hijra ) that is why these corrupt members can do what ever they like. These faggot IAS of India can’t do the same with Muslim. The 2nd photo at below is her photo which is a media report printed in Pravat Khabar ( Patna Edition ) when Bandana Priyashi received  firing from Hon’ble Patna High Court for her behaviour in the court and with the public. She apologised for her act in the court and to complainer.

The above photo is Mr. Nandu Dorje. He is a retired IAS from the state of Sikkim. Every one knows that he is an honest man. These are my questions about his honesty ( A ) Who sign all the bills of MahabodhiTemple – Secretary and Chairman of Mahabodhi Temple or public ( Read “ Lord’s money washed away in Bodhgaya ” )? ( B ) Every one is using the temple car for any reason and when Bhante Satyanand asked questions about it under Right of Information Acts then why Mr. Dorje hanged him till today about the issue ? ( C ) 60 lakhs ( 6 Millions ) rupees toilet corruption done by the member Mr. Arbind Singh and DCA of Hariyana. And the donor infront of him & media the covey their un-satisfaction about the standard or work then why ex-district magistrate Bandana Priyashi & Secretary Nandu Dorje were silent ? Why under Right of Information Acts Mr. Dorje is hiding till today about the same issue with me ? ( D ) When ex-district magistrate Sanjoy Singh gave conditions infront of donors that Archaeological Survey of India must carry out all the works of Mahabodhi Temple then how Mr. Dorje allowed same donors at 2010-11 to bring their own craftsman ? Look at the sub standard work of spire of Mahabodhi Temple ? Where are all the leaves of spire which carried out by Light of Buddha Dhamman Foundation, USA ? ( E ) Why Mr. Dorje is hiding the truth about Holy Bodhi Tree from all ( Read Holy Bodhi Tree article ) ?

The above photo is Arbind Singh is a member of bodhgaya temple management committee from Janata Dal United Party. He was able to manage PHD degree from MagadhUniversity when lalu Prasad Yadav was CM of Bihar. If you ask him what is the full form of PHD then his fore fathers can’t explain it. He is one of the corrupt politicians who have no base in his community. His father was mafia & killed by the family whom his father killed at mid night. He took 1 lakhs rupees from a DSP to manage the killing of police custody death of dalit ( an untouchable community ) member. And most horrible story is he gave few thousand rupees to this dalit ( an untouchable community ) family and rest he takes in his pocket. He is showing the foreign monks that he is a big short of Bihar and takes under table payment for different work. The intelligence of different wings reported about his activity but even after knowing his acts Mr. Nitish Kumar the CM of Bihar is over looking all. What ever corruption is happening in the MahabodhiTemple this Arbind Singh is behind it.

 

The above photo is Bhola Mishra is a member of bodhgaya temple management committee from Bharatia Janata Party. He also has PHD degree from MagadhUniversity when lalu Prasad Yadav was CM of Bihar. If you ask him about his subject of PHD then all his teeth fall down from his face. He is getting commission from different ways from contractors. He is one of the parts of MahabodhiTemple corruption. His name is also in the report of intelligence.

The above photo is Wangmo Dixey is the head of Indian part of Light of Buddha Dhamma Foundation, USA. She is the daughter of great master Tarthan Tulku. Wangmo is one of the instruments of killing Holy Bodhi Tree at Bodhgaya Mahabodhi Temple. If you see their Puja Organising drama at 2009 then for sure you may slap on her right face. They changed the out look of the spire of Mahabodhi Temple by money power ( Read the article Big Vikhari Vs Small Vikhari from this web page ) and you will know their activities at Bodhgaya. When I challenged this organization ( to her husband Dr. Richard Dixey ) then all are hiding under the table and till today they don’t reply to my mails & SMS.

The above photo is Khun Ratna Maleenont is a big donor from Thailand. She is cheated 3 times by the Temple Management Committee but never changed her way. If you mail general suthum  “suthum_ln” suthum_ln@hotmail.com OR confidencetravel@gmail.com then don’t expect any reply. They are same like Light of Buddha Dhamma Foundation. Money is every thing for them. They have big business in Bodhgaya.

 

The above photo is Dr. Harsh from Forest Research Institute of Dehradun. They are taking care of Holy Bodhi Tree from 2007 and each visit cost 3.2 hundreds thousand rupees in every 3 months to Mahabodhi Temple Management Committee. Now the bills of forest research institute paid by Mrs. Khun Ratna Maleenont from Thailand. These scientists don’t reply to my questions under right of information acts and if you ask how to stop the soil compaction in the two open area at west side of the mahabodhi temple then the pant of this scientist would be wet like temple management committee ( Read the article Catching the thief by R.T.I )

  

The above photo is Bhante Suresh Sasai is one of the members of temple management committee. He was the master mind to free the mahabodhi temple management from present formation. But people don’t know why he came to India from Japan and took Indian citizenship ? He is member of the committee but never talk about the corruption of mahabodhi temple management. He did not present in the temple management committee meetings and not only that never resign from the committee. But now he filed a case at Supreme Court to abolish the 1949 act. His team ruled mahabodhi temple management for 6 years but did nothing about Buddhist and even that time he did not filed the same case. His team members Bhante Pragnadeep spoil the image of monkshood by abusing the Biharies and Hindus. They looted the temple fund which Bhante Suresh Sasai knows but did nothing about it. He is nothing but an opportunist monk from Nagpur, India. The day I am face to face with him at nagpur then I will open his face and for that reason I kept all evidence with me. I asked his people to organized face to face talk at Nagpur, India but none his team members reply to me till today. Bodhi Tree was cut off in the year 2006 but cut off was proved in the year 2007 by Forest Research Indtitute scientist but till today no buddhist or organization asked Bihar govt. where is the cut off portion of holy bodhi tree !!! This is the standard of the buddhist !!!

 

The above photo is a protest rally of The International Buddhist Council of Bodhgaya and is not a registered organization. In this organization there are many groups. One group is lead by abbot of Burmese Vihar, One group is lead by abbot of Tibet temple, One group is lead by Mahabodhi Society of India and One group is lead by Bhante Pragadeep, Bhante Anand & Bhante Priyapal. This organization is full of faggots ( sorry to used such word but perfect word to address them ). When bodhi tree was cut off then this organization was quite and single headedly I proved bodhi tree was cut off. Please imagine Buddhist don’t stand for their own lord Buddha and then they are calling themselves as a Buddhist !!! So much corruption is taking place in the mahabodhi temple but no protest from Buddhist Council !!! They have guts for rally against Bihar Government when govt. of Bihar increased tariff of electricity !!! The Indian Buddhist mother & sister sleep at open air at the time of Buddho Jaytee at Bodhgaya  but 100 Buddhist Temple of Bodhgaya did not open their temple to stay at night for these poor mothers & sisters !!! These Buddhist are from Nagpur and poor with black skin. Please go to Thailand with an Indian and then see how they behave ( They call us Chi – Chi means bastard ). These Buddhist Temples took room rent Rupees 350 – 3000 per night and then in the bill they said donation !!! Even they were ready to sponsor money to kill me because I always open their face in the outer world but when I gave them back in my way then all are now step back. This organization never asked the Bihar govt. where is the cut off portion of Holy Bodhi tree. They are calling themselves Buddhist !!! Around 350 million Buddhist, 18 Buddhist nations but no one stand for Lord Buddha !!!

The above photo is The original photo from Archaeological Survey of India and see how it was in real formation. When A.S.I were repairing Spire in the past at that time why they did not add all the leaves in it. If it was mentioned in the text then why ASI did not add the leaves in the Spire ? The Light of Buddha Dhamma Foundation came up with Burmese text and temple management committee gave permission !!! Asoka was not a Burmese and the temple not built by the Burmese ? Why not any text found by the ASI from Indian text ?

The above photo is after added the leaves in the Spire by the Light of Buddha Dhamma Foundation International, USA at MahabodhiTemple in the 2010.  

The above photo is Present condition of the spire and where are all the leaves in the spire at 2013 ? Who will take responsibility for the present situation ? What kind of standard work it is that within 2 years the leaves are vanished from the spire !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inside condition of the MahabodhiTemple before added new wood work. Photo no. 14 is after the wood work. The question is where is originality of the ancient temple ? By whose permission this new things added ( read from the 1949 act laws no 10, 11, 12 ) !!! Do they take permission from State Government ? Under RTI questions the temple management is hiding !!!

The above photo is Within 6 months after construction the safety tank of the 60 lakhs rupees toilet at goal ghar market area collapse. See not even they did inside plaster of a tank and not even the tank is 5 feet’s deep !!! 60 lakhs rupees washed away but general Sutham is not ready to made written complain about this cheating. When a general of a army is not brave so how normal people can be brave ?

This is the photo of Holy Bodhi Tree before cutting. Look how big it was ( red circle ). The TempleManagement and the Bihar Govt. tells lies and lies to every one about the cutting of Holy Tree. After 2007 when Forest Research Institute establishes my claims then Bihar Govt. took U-turn and Nitish Kumar asked the world from bodhgaya not to cut off again. If they are honest then why they are not transferring the case into 1^st track court ? What is the intelligence report in the year 2006 ? Why my appeal not listening to transfer the case 850 / 2007 to 1^st track court so that the world could see the jail of culprits ? When at 2006 1^st time Bodhi Tree cut off news media broadcasted at that time two botany scientist from Rajendra Krishi Viswavidyalay came to Bodhgaya to collect samples from the Holy Tree for test so where is that report ? Last 7 years I am asking about the report under Right of information act but the home ministry of Bihar is hiding till today !!! This is called Indian honesty !!! Haaa ..

 

 

BIG VIKHARIES VS SMALL VIKHARIES ( BEGGARS )

BIG VIKHRIES ARE WAITING FOR WELCOMING THE GOVERNOR OF BIHAR INFRONT OF TEMPLE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OFFICE

SMALL VIKHARIES ARE LOOKING FOR FOOD FROM A WESTERN DEVOTEE INFRONT OF MAHABODHI TEMPLE

Every one in Bodhgaya always says “ OOO! that swami Ji ….. He is a negative minded Hindu monk ” but I always ask myself that all prophets talked about positive which is negative for opposite party from ages. So prophets are positive minded or negative minded ? The concepts of negativity people actually don’t know and telling the truth is not negativity. Even Jesus Christ also crucified for telling the truth. The problem is no one is ready to see their face in the mirror.

We have two kinds of beggar in this world. One is true beggar and another is false beggar those who are known as rich. The  rich beggars only wants fame & name who also can speak fluent English. These beggars are the real problem to make this world cruel. A real beggar is hungry to feed his stomach to alive in this world without harming any one. But the so called rich beggar is not only harming the ethics and values of the culture but ruined the original fabric of the culture.

This is not only happening in Buddhism but also happening in every religion. Lord Buddha never said what is happening under the Holy Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya now a day in the name of Yearly Puja. Puja is an integral part of life which is nothing but a practice of concentration to reach Nirvana. But today every organizer of Puja’s of any religion diverted from the object of puja and disrespects the teachings of prophet. Every year it is same story even after 10 days chanting of holy sutras !!! The brainless 2 legsmobile ( so called human ) thinks that they are following the path of lord. They call the bureaucrats / politicians to gain fame in the eyes of society weather the chief guest is really knows the subject or not that does not matter but the media certainly cover up the event because the chief guest is a big bureaucrats / politicians which will bring the organizer fame & name in the society. This is called marketing funda of present day to get more donation. These Puja organizer will paste all the photos in the web page and the brainless 2 legsmobile ( so called human ) when visit the web site then they dance with dreams in their mind which brings more donation to organization.

Those who are present under the holy tree are nothing but a poor creature those who does not know what the lord said. Look at the chanting process and asked yourself that do they realizing any words what they are chanting ? Do their hairs of the body stand like pencil ? If not then why such fake chanting organized by the organizer which is a waste of millions of rupees ? The donors give donation with trust but their trust no one cares. Every thing depends on cause and effect then what is the effect when the beginning ( cause ) is not as per the law of appropriate ? Who cares about the emotions of donors ? The Organizer only wants fame & name.

The Light of BuddhaDhamma Foundation International thinks that they are reviving the Dhamma in India. The 1^st question must be asked why they registered the foundation under the company act ? Why they are not registered under trust act OR society registration act ? A social organization always registered under the society registration act but never with company act until they have business motives. A true social organization always goes with society registration act because under this law every year an election has to take place for the governing body to run the society but under company act it does not required.

2^nd question must be asked what happened to take care about the holy bodhi tree ? The Wangmo Dixey has time to sit hours and hours to meet fraud DM of Gaya Jitendra Srivastav and then DM Sanjoy Singh to take out the barricade for so called Puja so that their Puja business can go on. Now where are they to stop the soil compaction by devotees at the two open place under the holy bodhi tree ? Why they don’t take the pictures of holy bodhi tree to Dept. of Morphology at Berkley University ? Dixey is living in Berkley, USA. I request every one to take the close up photos of branches of holy bodhi tree to show any morphologist in the dept of botany in any University. Let you all cry after knowing the truth and then see how the Indian scientist are telling lies. But these so called puja organizer are not honest and they only knows how to gain money. I SMS Richard Dixey on dated 26-11-2012 at 20:56:38 and e-mails to Dixey’s to come and see the truth of Wat Pa ( Wat Pa is beside Mahabodhi Temple ) but Richard Dixey don’t have guts to face the truth. What a joke that the Great Master Tarthang Tulku’s son in law don’t have guts to face the truth and this family wants to revive dhamma in India !!!! By e-mail I gave 272 pages sexual scandal documents of Buddhist Monks to Dixey family and asked to revive Dhamma in Thailand where most of the monks are paedophiles and no need to revive it in India. What are the games played by Mr. Gumpho the secretary of 17^thKarmaPa and Mrs. Wangmo Dixey in the year 2009 that is written in some report by some honest Officers which was kept in dark room in govt. office till today by the big corrupt officers but this year some honest officers took it out and sent secretly to central government to look into the whole bodhgaya issue and it is a whispering from some corner of the society.

THIS BARRICADE GIVEN AFTER ADVISE OF FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE SCIENTIST BUT THE PUJA ORGANIZER START PROTEST TO TAKE OUT THIS BARRICADE !!! NO CARE FOR HOLY TREE !!!

MEDIA REPORT HOW THE PUJA ORGANIZER BLACKMAIL THE TEMPLE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. TWO MEMBERS TOOK MONEY FROM THE ORGANIZER AS PER INTELLIGENCE REPORT

3^rd question must be asked that do they knows what is called monkshood ? As per Holy Script no monks has rights to cook or beg food. Monks gave life to Lord ( some people liked to call it nature ) so it is the duty of  father ( Lord / Nature ) to feed the child ( Monks / Practitioner ). It is translated as “ Trust on Lord ” but how many monks trust on lord ??? But today’s monks are busy with worldly things – restaurant , movies, wine and if Thailand then Ping Pong shows. They can’t live without A/C, A/C Car, Appeal Laptop and Digital Phone. Buddha said a Chivara must be used for 7 years. Look at the photos of the ceremony and asked the root questions to inner self that is there any one is monk who follows the teachings of Lord Buddha  ? At the time of breakfast as well as launch time Bangladesi Monks and Indian Monks are fighting for food at Kalachakra ground on the occasion of Tripitaka Chanting which organized by Dixey Family and the Thai Monks are taking pictures of it !!! The main culprit is Bhante Pragadeep from All India Bhikku Sangh who is creating all such monks in Bodhgaya which was fully discuss in the Monks meeting at Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee office and even after that how Dixey family called such corrupt Monks !!! ??? How the monks sit on chair infront of ” Bajrasana ” which is the symbol of Lord Buddha ??? A thief always knows a thief therefore what kind of organizer they are who can’t find real Monks from 11 countries to project the real Dhamma under the holy bodhi tree  !!! ???  The duty of a Monk is after meditation / puja, he / she have to devote rest time for social service in the locality. This law is Universal law for monks. So the question is then why Bodhgaya is so dirty ? Ask Mrs. Wangmo Dixey the daughter of great master Tarthang Tulku who wants to revive Dhamma in India. Dr. K.P Ramaiya the Ex-Commissioner of Magadh Division, Bihar, India said in the year 2009 to me “ Swami when the Tarthang Tulku’s family members don’t understand Buddhism then how you can expect none Buddhist to understand Buddhism .. come with the issue when I am home secretary of bihar ” !!! I will never forget these words in my life. Lord Buddha said “ A monks should not go to any crowded place” then the question is why 90 monastery’s ( Big and small ) in Bodhgaya !!! It can not be answered by the so called masters behind whom people are running those who have psychic brain. A real master never gives speech and never allowed students to run after him. He / She forced the students to sit and meditate which is the only way of salvation for a life.

4^th question must be asked that when Light of Buddhadhamma Foundation International change the Ashoka time spire of holy Mahabodhi Temple then how they are socialist ? Bodhgaya Temples Rules 13 said which is as follows :- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the rules made there under, the Committee shall have no jurisdiction over the movable or immovable property of the Saivite Monastery of Bodh Gaya. And under rules 10. ( a ) the upkeep and repair of the temple. So BodhgayaTemple management can not give permission to change the spire of holy Mahabodhi Temple. The Archaeological Survey of India has no power to give permission to any one when the area is not control by them. The United National World Heritage Site can not give permission to any one when the matter is an internal management of independent country and also world heritage site did not pass any resolution regarding it in the year 2010. More over The Ex-PM P.V.Narsima Rao brought amendment after Babri Masjid demolition that “ No Temple, Masjid, Church, Gurduwara or any place of worship must be as it is from 1947 condition …”. Therefore how they changed the spire of holy Mahabodhi Temple ? Look at the A.S.I photo from their web site and find out is there any thing like that which you can watch today at mahabodhi temple top spire ? Is the Mahabodhi Temple built by the Burmese so that the cultural evidence could be seen in sculpture ? Flash back now 2009 drama about Puja issue for doing puja under the Holy Tree !!! Money power speaks every where. MERE DESH MAHAN 100 ME SE 100 BAIMAN.

5^th The question must be asked to Richard Dixey that if all the money is from his family then what for so many sponsored ? He said to me  before this year puja at mahabodhi temple market complex infront of public that all the money belongs to his family. He did not see my web page where I pasted his letter which was given to Thai devotees for giving donation in the year 2010 to change the spire. This guy has no idea what is Swami Ji. I think after visiting my web page and collecting info about me he is worried to face me. This family thinks that they are doing something in bodhgaya which is a self  illusion. Do they buy flowers from bodhgaya for Puja ? Do they give food contract to locals for feeding monks ? Do they print magazine from local press ? Do they buy rice from local shop ? Do they buy fruits from local market ? and so on. Yes … yes to clean the dish they ask the locals. Look at the Hotel Bills of Royal Residency and then check the audit report then you will know from where it was paid.  This family gave dustbin to Bodhgaya Municipality to put infront of Hotels and Guest House of Bodhgaya  which is dump at Bodhgaya Mahant Math !!! When the ADM Mr. Susil Mishra Ji said to me about it then I asked him that “ Do they have Brain ” ? Dustbin infront of guest house and hotels of bodhgaya !!! My God ! What a logic !!! I am not Bihari dear reader but a Bengali from West Bengal and gave life to Buddha & bodhgaya.

Therefore it is proved that the big vikharis ( beggar ) are the root cause to transfromed this world cruel those who don’t have any ethics, morality and values. They are just business man to do business even with dhamma.

Jaiiiiiiii Hindddd

NOTE : PLEASE ALWAYS ASK THE MONKS THAT WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF MONKS ? DO THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO COOK FOOD ? WHAT ARE THE ELIMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE A RELIGION ? WHAT ARE THE THINGS REQUIRED TO BE A PROPHETHOOD ? AFTER HOW MANY YEARS A MONK CAN TAKE NEW CLOTH AND WHY YOUR CLOTH IS SUCH ? THESE QUESTIONS ARE ENOUGH TO KNOW A MONK AND THE ORGANIZER.

LOOK HOW THE THAI MEDIA PERSON RESPECTING LORD BUDDHA !!! PUJA ORGANIZER BROUGHT THEM FROM THAILAND

LOOK CAREFULLY HOW PEOPLE ARE RESPECTING LORD BUDDHA AT MAHABODHI TEMPLE DURING 10DAYS TRIPITAKA CHANTING !!! ORG. BY LBDF

LIGHT OF BUDDHA DHAMMA FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL DONATED THIS KIND OF DUSTBIN FOR BODHGAYA TO PUT INFRONT OF HOTELS AND GUEST HOUSE !!!

ALL THE DUSTBIN NOW STANDING AT MAHANT PLACE AND DIXEY FAMILY THINKS THEY DID SOME THING FOR BODHGAYA

THE RESULT OUT OF THIS TRUE STORY

THIS DIXEY FAMILY STARTED DISTRIBUTING DUSTBIN TO ALL THE PLACES AT BODHGAYA !!!

LOOK HOW THEY BROUGHT THE DUSTBIN FROM MAHANT MATH ON DATED 6-11-2012 AT AROUND 3:30 PM AFTER PUBLISHING THIS ARTICLE

BUT THIS FOUNDATION LIGHT OF BUDDHADHAMMA FOUNDATION DID NOT TAKE LESSION FROM THE ARTICLE THAT IS WHY ON 6TH THEY BROUGHT THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN OF BIHAR UDAY NARAYAN CHOUDHURY ASSEMBLY SPEAKER AND THE MAN WHO IS THE KILLER OF EX -MLA  MR.RAJESH KUMAR. HIS NAME IS IN THE POLICE REPORT. EVERY POLITICIAN , NEWS PAPER EDITOR AND OFFICIAL KNOWS THAT HE GIVES PROTECTION TO MAO VADI TERRORIST. NOW THIS FOUNDATION WILL PASTE THE PICTURE OF A KILLER IN THE WEB PAGE. ASK THIS POLITICAL LEADER ABOUT 50 LAKHS PAYMENT AND THEN SEE HIS CHANGING FACE. THERE IS A WORD A THIEF ALWAYS KNOWS ANOTHER THIEF.

EVERY LIVING CREATURE IS AN IMPERIALISTIC – WOW !!! WHAT A BUDDHIST COMPASSION ???

Every part of the world was talking about the brutality in Bangladesh when Muslim destroys BuddhistTemple. Yes indeed it is a shameful act by any society in the world if they call themselves as a human.

When any living creature is in majority then they dominate on minority. It is an evidence of domination which is an illusion for the undeveloped mind in the eyes of truth but such act is a diabolic threat for humanity. Any one can shout about love, compassion, honesty, morality in any where of the world but the hard truth is majority always dominate on minority and then the value of morality is one rupee that means morality gone.

Few days back in Bodhgaya, India the members of International Buddhist Council and Bangladesh Buddhist temple go for a peace march for the attack of Buddhist in Bangladesh. But what happened to these Buddhist when they attack Christen and Muslim in Sri Lanka ??? Where is the compassion and the teachings of Buddha when they destroy Masjid in Sri Lanka ???

I went to Nagpur, Maharastra, India on dated 22^nd Oct. 2012 to tell the people of Nagpur about the present corruption of Holy Mahabodhi Temple Management and the corruption of Bodhgaya Buddhist Community. BUTTT… I only hard abusive words against “ Hindus, Bihari and Bramhan”. I don’t understand what kind of culture these people have over there ( Nagpur, India ) !!! I was so fed of listening abuse about “ Hindus, Bihari and Bramhan” that I came back to Bodhgaya on 3^rd day that is 25^th Oct, 2012. In Nagpur the Neo-Buddhist is in majority so they dominate on minority that is why their language is such against “ Hindus, Bihari and Bramhan”. I am not a Bihari, nor a Bramhan and not even following the Hinduism but the acts of people at nagpur, India hurts me very much.    

Today’s human is nothing but an animal.  And these animal’s dress up by costly cloth, use costly mobile phone, laptop, A/C car and also explore the universe. But they forgot to look at self.  

Now you read the News Paper report and after seeing the photos think where you are and what you are.

http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=3502

Monks destroy Muslim shrine as police stand idle

Tamil Guardian 15 September 2011

Over 100 Sinhala Buddhist monks demolished a Muslim shrine in Anuradhapura on Saturday according to reports by the BBC.

Monks, dressed in their saffron robes, encouraged other monks and Sinhala crowds to tear down the shrine.

One photograph of the incident shows a monk burning the flag of Islam by the ruins of the shrine.

The destruction was reportedly masterminded by a monk, named Amatha Dhamma Thero, who justified the attack by stating the local Muslims were attempting to convert the shrine into a mosque.

According to Thero, despite local government officials attempting to pacify the Sinhala crowds by stating the shrine would be closed within three days, angry crowds proceeded to raze the shrine, shouting “we cannot wait”.

Thero explained to reporters that the shrine was located on land ‘given’ to the Sinhalese Buddhists over 2000 years ago – an ideology central to the Sinhala Buddhist text, the Mahavamsa.

According to locals, senior members of the Sri Lankan police force witnessed the entire incident, but did nothing to intervene.

Photographs published on a Sri Lankan news portal show Sri Lankan policemen idly watching the monks’ wanton destruction. No arrests or charges have been made.

The police however deny the incident ever took place.

Police spokesperson, Prishantha Jayakody, told BBC Sinhala, “This is a fabricated story. No media in Sri Lanka has reported this and we don’t have any police report. If this happened there would have been a complaint. We have not received any complaint.”

Sri Lanka’s Buddhist monks, part of the very fabric of Sinhala polity, are notorious for their extremist Sinhala nationalism and their deeply concerning propensity towards violence.

Buddhist monks and violence

Sri Lanka’s monks have consistently been leading proponents of a return to armed conflict during times of ceasefire.

See ‘Sri Lanka’s top monk shuns non-violence’ by Voice of America, dated 9th April 2008.

See ‘Sinhala nationalists want truce torn up’ – Buddhist monks protest in demanding the abrogation of the 2002 ceasefire, in February 2007.

See ‘APRC dead in the water’

Targeting of non-Buddhist places of worship

The sacred buildings of other religions have frequently been targeted by Sinhala-Buddhism extremism.

The JHU – a political party known for its ultra-Sinhala nationalist stance – was formed by Buddhist Monks.

In 2009, the JHU justifed an attack on a Christian healing centre, ‘Centre for Hope’ in Koswatte, arguing that religious conversions to Christianity left Sinhala Buddhists with no other option.

Then JHU spokesperson, Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe stated, “we as the JHU who pledged to build a ‘Buddhist nation’ have a right to raise a voice against the church”.

A SRI LANKAN BUDDHIST MONK BURNING THE ISLAMIC FLAG !!! BUDDHISM ???

WHEN ANY RELIGION IS IN MAJORITY THEN THE POLICE STAND LIKE THIS !!

MONK’S ARE ALSO ANIMAL BY ACTS ALONG WITH HIGH OFFICERS !!!

LETTERS TO BODHGAYA TEMPLE MANAGEMENT

To                                                                                            Date : 3/02/2012

The Chairman Of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Post – Bodhgaya, Dist –Gaya,Bihar-824231.

Subject : Why till today theHolyMahabodhiTemplenot yet declare as a national monument ??

Dear Chairman Shahiba Jee,

It is a great shame for Bihar thatMahabodhiTempleis not a National Monument. Last 3 years I am taking up that issue with BTMC even by RTI but your great BTMC not answering it. Look at the file dear madam jee. What a joke of the century that a World Heritage Site isnotNational Monument( Mera Desh Mahan ). It is possible only isBihar. The cause behind is political which is to give accommodation to 3 political members who have no base in the public life but working of the party for long time and for that reason they have to accommodate in some places and BTMC is the right place for such baseless party workers. What a joke dear madam jee when a member’s duty is only to come at the time of meeting and they have no power what so ever as per 1949 BTMC act. To-days political members are acting such a manner that they are in some high position.

TheBodhgayaTempleis the place of corruption since last 60 years except few years when Gayan Jagat gee was here and the great honest man from district administration was secretary of BTMC. You can see his photo at BTMC office. These corrupt members will never allowed the temple to be national monument because if they do then these members have no place to sit and earn under table the way your great kalicharan Singh Yadav and Arbind Singh is playing now in the temple. Look at the report of State intelligence, Central Intelligence report, SI Jamil Akhtar report about the Organizing Puja at 2008. Dear Madan Jee if you have a drop of honesty in your life book then investigate about it or called up DM Sanjoy Singh.

Dear Madam ji Jhasi ki Rani Bano that is why lord chosen you as an IAS but do you think you are doing your job ?? Running away from the truth is very easy but facing the truth is a real bravery. I do hope that you will take immediate action with theDelhito make it as a national monument. Your all other members are same since last 4 years but they only knows to make bills at sujata hotel, taking photos with the high dignitaries whom they can not meet in 14 life times, and backdoor income. Do Monk Suresh Shesai Ji come for the meeting ?? He is a self respect man. Therefore like a self respect forBiharplease you take hard action this time to make it happened as a national monument.

Thanking you,

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

Copy to :        Member of Advisory committee DIG Magadh division, UNESCO Delhi Office, Mr. Visaal Ji at Supreme Court for official use.

To                                            Date : 3/02/2012, Time : 08:16 PM

The Chairman Of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Post – Bodhgaya, Dist –Gaya,Bihar-824231.

Subject : Look at the media news from “ Probhat Khabar ” about your administrative condition now what you are going to say ??

Dear respected chairman shahiba jee,

What is your opinion after the article publish in the news paper “ Prabhat Khabar ” dated 2/02/2012 at page no. 5 ?? It is clear evidence that your administration is like “kumbhkarno” from Holy Ramayana who eats once and sleep for 6 months. Where is your photo season members the political people now ??  When you have your own security and staff which is above 80 numbers as well as private security, CC Tv and in the bank you have 200 million rupees then how all this activity is going on like Holy Temple became Temple of shoes every year from December to February and you have a notice board of rupees 100. This is not just 1^st time happening but uncountable times and just for an example I am giving you data. Could you please tell me for what reason you are using temple car if you are not able to take care of the temple ??

Dear chairman shahiba jee could you please tell me how from stupa the idols are vanished ?? The DM Rajbala Verma made a file with the help of archaeological survey of India, Patnadivision but your BTMC not giving the photos to me as well as the archaeological survey of India, patnadivision. The Drama is such that all the photos are kept in the museum at bodhgaya and if investigation started from that photo album then the entire previous secretary will go to jail mainly the great mafia Mr.Kalicharan Singh Yadav from RJD. Not only that most of the idols are taken out from the temple which is far top and replace by fake same idols which made atGaya. Do you want me to give you in writings in the court paper ? TheBihar government, BTMC, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna Division have no guts to accept my written challenge since 2008. Madan jee Mr. Sanjoy Singh the ex chairman of BTMC never dares to accept my challenge and even the Home Secretary of Indian too. Read all letters from the BTMC file.

I am giving copy of this letter to UNESCO atDelhiand keeping official copy with my Supreme Court lawyer for further use.

Thanking you, God bless you.

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

Copy to :        Member of Advisory committee DIG Magadh division, UNESCO Delhi Office, Mr. Visaal Ji at Supreme Court for official use.

To                                                         Date : 09/ 02/ 2012, Time : 15:32 PM

The Chairman Of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Post – Bodhgaya, Dist –Gaya,Bihar-824231.

Subject : Look at the Stupa

Dear Chairman Shahiba,

Please look at the evidence and then tell me are you not contempt of court ?? Look at the TOUR REPORT DATED 5.06.2008 and the photo no. 4. Please tell me when you are going to remove the present golden colour metallic railing ?? Please look at Photo No. 0013 from where you can see the golden colour metallic railing.

And now you look at the statement your affidavit in the hon’ble high court ofpatna. Look at photo no. 001, 002, 003.

Look what they said under RTI act to me. 4-5 thousand monks are shouting mantra and they are tell vibration is the subject of study !!! ??? and then in the report expert and scientist are telling regulate the visitor !!! ??? I don’t understand what kind of scientist they once they are talking about REGULATE VISITOR and then telling Vibration is not the subject of study !!! Then what for they are appointed if the don’t study every chapter to protect the holy mahabodhi tree. And tell me this year 2012 what are the step you have taken at the time of organizing pujas by different organization ?? Look at the statement of the scientist in the hon’ble high court and as per available evidence you did nothing to protect the open two spaces infront of Mahabodhi Tree where devotees did pujas.

Dear Madam the Bihar Govt. played a big game with me and I was helpless because you all higher the big giant about this case and my lawyer was junior simple practitioner in thepatnahigh court. I know well how the govt. play game to save the face. When a judge said “ Show your evidence to district magistrate” then my question is the then acting chief justice is why I am in the court if the district magistrate ofgayalisten to me plea ?? Dear madam ji now you will see what is called supreme court.

I am looking for your positive answer if you are brave enough.

Thanking you

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

Copy to :        Member of Advisory committee DIG Magadh division, UNESCO Delhi Office, Mr. Visaal Ji at Supreme Court for official use.

To                                                        Date : 12.02.2012

Mr. Nitish Kumar

The Ho’ble Chief Minister ofBihar

E-Mail: cmbihar-bih@nic.in 

Subject : Please reply to my following questions. 

Dear Respected Chief Minister Ji,

1. With due respect I would like to say that how many days your administration over looking the damage ofHolyMahabodhiTempleand The Holy Tree. Your District Magistrate of Gaya cum Chairman of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee of Bodhgaya not answering the e-mails, and not even pick up the public calls then please let us know how we can take up issues with her ?
2. TheMahabodhiTemplecondition I have shown with evidence to the management as well the member of the advisory committee ofMahabodhiTemplemanagement Committee The D.I.G of Magadh Division.
3. Them temple condition is worse like Bodhgaya garbage issue which you was address at Bodhgaya on dated 3-02-2012.
4. Please look at the photos of the holy Mahabodhi Temple of Bodhgaya and tell me is it aHolyTemple?? The Holy Mahabodhi Tree is sick but who cares about it dear sir ? Even your appointed scientists are also telling lies and lies. At this situation dear sir tell me how we can protect our Heritage and who is going to listen us ??
5. I do hope that after seeing the evidence you will take action as soon as possible or I have no choice to take up the issue in the hon’ble supreme court. Dear sir last 3 years I am talking about it and 4 times I was attacked by the mafia’s only forHolyTempleissue so that they can do as they like with Holy Mahabodhi Temple.

Thanking you, Looking forward for your positive response

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji )

Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya, Gaya, Bihar – 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

Chief Secretary E-Mail : cs-bihar@nic.in, Principal Secretary, Home, E-Mail : secy-home-bih@nic.in

Secretary, Tourism, E-Mail : secy-tourism-bih@nic.in

Through e-mail :       “mahabodhi” <mahabodhi@hotmail.com>

dm-gaya.bih@nic.in

To                                                                                DATE : 26.02.2012

The Chairman Of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Post – Bodhgaya, Dist –Gaya,Bihar-824231.

Subject : Bodhi Tree , Stupas, New Toilet at Goal Ghar new market, Beggars

Chairman Shahiba Ji,

Please look at all the news paper cut off and the Photos of today infront ofMahabodhiTemple. Do you think any ways and means there is any short of discipline in BTMC ??  Read IPC 192, 193, 288, 406, 415, 417 and you are doing it with a Foreigner. His is being cheated by BTMC 3 times. General Suthum loves Buddha and he is behind all donations to BTMC to serve the people but you are all cheating this good innocent man. Think for a moment that even after cheating he is coming to you every time !!! Just imagine Bhante Bodhi Pal Cheated 30, 000 dollars, then again he cheated when the back side public toilet construction was going on and again 2012 he is being cheated. Just think for a moment Chairman Shahiba Ji how with out tender some one can construct any thing when the area is control by public property authority ?? Under which law of constitution you did it when you are in public property ?? Do you and your members thinks that this is your personall property ?? How DCA can work in your area without your permission ?? Without tender how you can allowed DCA to work ?? How you allowed your member Arbind Singh to construct the toilet ?? When you saw all the materials then how many times you issued letters to DCA ?? Mr. Lertruth is just a helping man of General Suthum and he can’t work in Indian with out the permission of any Indian authority same way DCA too. This Mr. Lertruth is dishearten by the acts of Indian.

What is the condition of Stupas ?? What is the condition of Holy Bodhi Tree ?? How you disobey the expert committee report and the scientist report ?? Even you gave affidavit in the court that railing has been taken out then how still the railing is there ?? Read tour report 5-6 May 2008. Read the affidavit of F.R.I in the hon’ble patnahigh court and then you see what was the condition at the time of yearly puja by different organization from Oct. to March. Look at the media report about it. I know I am talking to a deaf and dump but as a monk my duty is to knock your door every time like the way we eat daily food.

Look at the photos of beggars and tell me why BTMC allowed such “ DANA” ?? Look at the Korean Btv man how he is shooting !! If it is Dana then why photography ?? They show our things there and then these types of monks like our Bodhgaya NGO’s gather huge money in the name of poor people. Look carefully how media persons are also present and taking photos. What the social security dept ofgayais doing ?? When the law is there then why your officer is sitting ingaya?? What the police dept is doing ?? It is not one day matter but every year it is happening and all your officers are sleeping. Can I expect from you that now you will weak up from your Deaf and Dump condition ??

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

C.C to :           Chief Secretary E-Mail : cs-bihar@nic.in, Principal Secretary, Home, E-Mail : secy-home-bih@nic.in

Secretary, Tourism, E-Mail : secy-tourism-bih@nic.in, Member of Advisory committee DIG Magadh division

Special Copy to General Suthum for help for Bodhgaya

To                                                                                DATE : 03.04.2012

The Chairman Of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Post – Bodhgaya, Dist –Gaya,Bihar-824231.

Subject : What happened about the goal ghar market place toilet ??

Chairman Shahiba Ji,

My simple question to you that are you a daughter of “ Dhitorast ” ( the great character from Mahabharat ) ?? If you say no then the question is why not there is any action regarding the goal ghar market place toilet corruption ?? After all it is a matter of 60 lakhs rupees as per General Suthum wife from thai land. And you also don’t worry being a daughter of “ Dhitorast ”  because heregaya media, social worker, officers all are in same line.

My simple question is how much money you got from under the table by Arbind Singh who is your member in the Temple Management Committee. There is no tender when the area is control by you !!! Over all you are the soul authority of the gayadistrict and no law in the constitution can stop you to probe the scam. Don’t you have any civil engineer in Govt. Office to estimate the cost of the goal ghar toilet making ?? Or you can not read letters because you are a daughter of “ Dhitorast ” ?? Then the question is how you became district magistrate if you are a daughter of “ Dhitorast ” ?? If an area is controlled by the Govt. or by any Committee which is appointed by the Govt. then they have to follow the law of constitution and as per constitution you have to make tender if any works carried out by the authority. So where is tender ?? Who is looking the work on be half of bodhgaya temple management committee at goal ghar toilet making ?? More over you are not replying my letters as a chairman of BTMC as well as district magistrate.

Therefore it is proved that you are a “ THIEF ” and I am telling it writing. If you are an IAS then keep in mind I am an IIT both starts with “ I ”. If I go to court then some IAS will give report to court that “ DM of Gaya is merely a chairman with out doing day to day work …. ” when DM is the soul authority of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee as per 1949 act. DM shahiba  Ghandhi Ji ko mar ke aap jaisa ghotala baz log desh ko bech dala. You the kind of IAS who are the child of “ Dhitorast ” ruined my country ( look at the attached photo ) and you are supported by the DARU ( Wine ), MURGA ( Chicken ) party who has pen in their hand whom known as mirror of the society. Your backbone is so weak that you run away from Pachatti at the time of Kala-Chakra Puja and never dare to face a fatichar “ Swami ” ( as your administration whisper ).

What to say and to whom all are part of one coin !!! DARU, MURGA ZInda baad … Ghotala Baz Zinda Baad.

JAIIIIIIIIIIII   HINDDDDDDD

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313

NOTE : When a thief caught by people then what they do ??

 

To                                                                                DATE : 07-04-2012

The Secretary of Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee

Bodhgaya, Gaya, Bihar– 824231.

Subject : Please transparent your activity

Dear Sir,

Are you agree that an honest man is always honest in any circumstances ?? Do you think you are honest man ?? Yes the hindus was corrupt in past and present too as per my information but you tell me what you are then ?? Are you not part of corruption ?? Supporting the corruption is also corruption. From 2009 I am telling you that you can’t handle these stupid members until you are strong. This isBiharand here people only understand hard word with hard action. Corruption after corruption is going on. How many times Mr. Lertruth Ji cheated ? In your time two times and think after cheated 3 times at a row still he is coming with money. The money may be giving by General Suthum in different way but he is the real source. What your master & spiritual master taught you dear secretary Dorje Ji ?? It is sure that he taught you to do drama otherwise why you are doing drama every time ??

1. If any one asking under RTI then you are playing game ?? Look at the Maharastrian  Bhante.
2. Look what you did with me at 2007
3. Look what you did at the time of Diexy issue ( permission to collect money )
4. Look at your statement for misusing cars by members and staff but you can not give little more money to poor staff when you have so much money but the members are giving random bills from Sujata Hotel ( look at the bill of Sujata Hotel on 29-03-2012 ).
5. Look how you are spending money for the Guest when they are not helping any ways and meansMahabodhiTemple.
6. See when so many NGO’s are doing work in Bodhgaya then what is the reason to go to bakroar village on 29-03-2012 to distribute medicine ?? When you have car you can go to deep towards east or west or south or north where people need help but not at bakroar.
7. See how you are killing the holy bodhi tree by not taking care of it ( not taking out white marbles, grill golden colour ( Even in your affidavit in patna high court you said that you took out golden grill and tiles but still today it is there and I know what was the game at patna high court and how Chief Justice over ruled my plea then I send all evidence to chief justice of Indian and I got his reply but no little money to file the case and now what you will do ), open place compaction, heavy lights )
8. 14 lakhs rupees in the donation box diluted by licking water inside of it and you hide that from every one.
9. Look at your contract with Security Company Cobra
10. Look at toilet making issue with DCA 2012 and public toilet making beside pond.
11. Look how Arbind Singh took his wife with the team at Srilanka and the bill ???
12. Look how you take backdoor help from FRI to make pujas under the holy tree.

I am not talking about rationing bills, tea bills, purchasing. Dear Dorje ji some where you have to answer then what you are going to answer ?? Supporting the corruption OR overlooking the corruption is same guilty as a convict in the court. This time I am not same Arup Bramhachari as I was 2007.

Think if you blood is honest or please go out from BTMC. I am telling honestly.

God prevail brain In you.

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ), Root Institute Road, Bodhgaya,Gaya– 824231.

NOTE : TILL NOW YOU DID NOT STRAT WORK ABOUT MY RTI QUESTIONS. PLEASE PROVIDE ME ALL THE INFORMATION AND ADD TWO QUESTION ALONE WITH MY 1^ST RTI ( Please add 2011 – 2012 audit report, copy of amendment for the members allowance if you have any with my RTI plea LETTER DATED 04-04-2012 )

To,                                                                                      Date : 24-04-2012

Dr. Gautam Sengupta the Director General of Archeological Survey ofIndia

Janpath,New Delhi- 110011

E-Mail : directorgeneralasi@gmail.com

The Minority Commission of India

5th Floor Lok Nayak Bhavan Khan Market, New delhi: 110003

E-Mail : whabibullah@nic.in, htsangliana@hotmail.com, keki.75@nic.in, spalzes.ncm@gmail.com, hshanspalg@gmail.com, vinod.sharma55@nic.in

Subject : Could you please tell me what do you want to say about theBodhgayaTemplemanagement acts  ?

Dear Sir,

Look at the changes in theMahabodhiTempleat Bodhgaya. The minority commission ofIndiareceiving complains with evidence from Bhante Satyanand Agarwal and Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji ) regarding corruption in the Buddhist world at Bodhgaya. Arup Bramhachari repeating his complains again and again with the Archeological Survey of India. Now the question is what must be the next step ?? Both the national organization is not doing any thing till now regarding the issue. FIR filed but DIG of Magadh Division is silent !!  What Mr. N. Dorje is doing with you ?? Managing the corruption issue with you ?? Even the IAS’s are so coward that they have no guts to answer under RTI because Buddho Purnima is coming and if the maharastrian buddhist see all the corruption of Mahabodhi Temple then they will tear the BTMC. Hotel bills of 3 Hindu members are around 13 lakhs !!! Even they played a game with Bhante Satyanand when he asked questions under RTI. Even I am repeatedly writing to Magadh Commissioner, DIG Magadh Division who are the members of the advisory committee ofMahabodhiTempleat Bodhgaya about corruption but all are silent !!! Chief Secretary ofBihar, Home Secretary of Bihar, Tourism minister and secretary also received complains but the result is ZERO ?? So get ready to answer at Sup. Court.

Jai Hind

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji )

Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya, Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313.

CC :    Chief Secretary ofBihar, Home Secretary of Bihar

Minister of Tourism of Govt. of Bihar, Tourism Secretary ofBihar.

Commissioner of Magadh Division, DIG of Magadh Division.

To

The DIG of Magadh Division                                       DATE: 12-04-2012

Gaya Town, Gaya, Bihar.

Subject : What is the reason for not taking any action against BTMC corruption ??

Dear respected sir,

1. Many times I wrote to you regarding the latest corruption of Mahabodhi Temple management corruption about making new toilet at Goal Ghar Market area ( Mahabodhi Temple Complex Market / beside multimedia centre ). Being a member of the advisory committee ofMahabodhiTempleit is your moral duty to stop corruption inMahabodhiTemple.
2. TheMahabodhiTemplemade a new toilet at Goal Ghar area ( Beside Multimedia Centre ) by a donor fromThailandMadam  Khoon Ratan Milinat. Who paid 60 lakhs rupees to DCA ofdelhi. Madam Milinut was not satisfied the material used in the toilet infront of media on dated 26-02-2012 at Bodhgaya.
3. The works supervised by the BTMC member Arbind Singh with DCA. Not only that the toilet plan did not approved by the Nagar Panchayat. Arbind Singh over ruled all norms by showing his power as politician.
4. Therefore an investigation must be carried out regarding this issue. Top to Bottom all concerning officers and members are involved in this regard. The district magistrate can not over look in this issue because she is the chairman of the committee and she and secretary of BTMC is not replying my letters.
5. Another corruption took place in the BTMC. How BTMC gave permission to a foreign organization “ The light of Buddhadhamma Foundation ” from Berkley, USA ( Madam Dixy and party ) to collect money from devotees around the world for repair work atHoliMahabodhiTemple. BTMC is not giving any data in this regard that how much money The light of Buddhadhamma Foundation fromBerkley,USA collected when it is a public property. From top to bottom of BTMC got enough under table that is the reason why they did not put FIR against BuddhaDhamma Foundation if they did not gave any short of permission. Not only that The Buddhadhamma Foundation not even gave any data of donation till 10-04-2012 at their web site. The district magistrate knows every aspect of it as a chairman but she is silent because she got under table.
6. It is your examination as an honest officer as well as citizen ofIndiathat how much you are an honest man. As I know that for an IPS very difficult to file a case of cheating against an IAS.

Thanking you,

Arup Bramhachari ( Swami Ji )

Root Institute Road, Narsingh Than, Bodhgaya,Gaya,Bihar– 824231

Cont. No. 9304753313.

NOTE : DIG ASKED ME TO SEND A COPY OF MAILS TO SP OFGAYABECAUSE HIS MAIL SOME TIMES NOT WORKING.

3 attached Photos and some photos of Toilet

WOW !!!!!!!!!!! 6 MILLION RUPEES TOILET

     

THIS IS 6 MILLION RUPEES TOILET AT MAHABODHI SHOPPING COMPLEX WHICH IS DONATED BY MRS. MALEENONT FROM THAILAND. THE WAY IT IS MADE WITHOUT TENDER THAT IS VIOLATION OF RULE NO. 38 OF BTMC ACT.  THIS LADY CHEATED 3 TIMES IN A ROW BUT STILL THIS LADY DONATE HUGE MONEY TO THE BODHGAYA TEMPLE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. AT THE TIME OF MAKING THIS TOILET THE BTMC DID NOT TAKE ANY N.O.C FROM BODHGAYA NAGAR PANCHAYAT AND NO PLAN SUBMITTED TO BODHGAYA NAGAR PANCHAYAT. ON DATED 26-03-2012 MRS. MALEENONT OPENLY COMPLAIN TO THE MEDIA FOR THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIAL USED TO MAKE IT. ON BE HALF OF BTMC,  MEMBER  ARBIND SINGH AND D.C.A FROM DELHI BUILD UP THIS TOILET. EVEN AFTER COMPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE THE DM AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER & DIG MAGADH DIVISION ( THEY ARE MEMBER OF ADVISORY BOARD ) DID NOTHING. CORRUPTION AFTER CORRUPTION AND THE SECRETARY MR. N. DORJE IS DEAF AND BLIND.  

THE CASE OF HOLY BODHI TREE

The case of the holy Bodhi Tree in Bodh Gaya brings many questions about how indian scientists do research. Here I worked out 11 points with many questions, which need a profound research and profound answers….. CLICK ON EVERY PHOTO TO SEE DETAILS

Question. Here you find my question to the Government of India  

Article. in: The Telegraph, 17.12.2007: Priest quits over temple cut charge

POINT 1.        Do your scientist from Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India measure the respiration of the holy bodhi tree in every visit ? What is the rate of respiration of holy bodhi tree at present ? When there is a method to do so then where is the measurement of respiration ? and then I wonder that how you are telling that holy bodhi tree is healthy ? ….

POINT 2.        How much %  of area of any huge tree like bodhi tree at Mahabodhi Temple, Bodhgaya, Bihar, India must be open ground to get well breath, fresh air, water, fertilizer for living a long life ? Is there enough open area is available at present under the holy bodhi tree in the Mahabodhi Temple, Bodhgaya, Bihar, India where lord budda got enlightenment ?  I do not understand, why there is telling, that holy bodhi tree is healthy….

POINT 3.        Soil compaction is the main issue for any healthy tree. Look the words of Lord Buddha .. ”  The tree that gives you pleasent shade, To sit or lie at need, you should not tear, its branches down, a cruel wanton deeds ”  The Jataka, Vol. IV, page 222 and now tell me when the soil compaction is still going on then how Holy Bodhi tree is healthy ? Bodhgaya Temple Management committee did not take any step to stop soil compaction. Root area is still covered by white marbles last 5 years. I do not realize, that why the BTMC is not taking out the white marbles ? so the bad effect is there, and there is no chance for holy Bodhi Tree to get fresh air and breath….. So ????  

POINT 4.        Look at the golden colour metallic grill and now you see what you said in the hon’ble patna high court and now you think that are you not contempt of court along with BTMC ?  The metallic golden colour grill creating heat which is just below the branches of holy tree and the barks of the tree getting heat which is damaging the cells of the tree. And the marbles are giving direct heat to the root which is harmful for the respiration. Till now root area is covering by cloth by the devotees and also out side Ashoka railing. So there is no fresh air for the tree. So I do not understand, why there is claiming that the tree is healthy…..

POINT 5.        Look at the present high power lights system around the holy bodhi tree ! Is it necessary to switch on lights at night when other lights are on around ?  Tree leaves have the most sensitive skin. These high power lights creates heat which effected the skin of the leaves and leaves carries photosynthesis so how a damage leaves can produce  nutrition for a tree. Dear sir do your  scientist ever put any thermometer just beside the leaves to see the temperature of the lights ? If you do it, you will see the truth….. so ??

POINT 6.        On the road side the butter lamps burning by the devotees, which creates huge carbon monoxide. It effects the respiration of the surrounding trees and also affected the sick bodhi tree. I do not understand, why there is telling, that holy bodhi tree is out of sickness…..
  POINT 7.        Look at the branches all over the Holy Bodhi Tree how dark black it is and it is clearly telling that  the holy tree is effected by Fungi. If it is not fungi then what it is ?Therefore I do not understand, why  you are telling that the holy tree is healthy…..
POINT 8.        When the sun light come out early morning then that particular time is harmful for any tree because Cool night temperature transforming into hot day temperature and the leaves of any tree is most sensitive in the group of living organism and to save from this affect we need to arrange a cover around the holy bodhi tree but there is no advise for cover around the Holy Bodhi tree. I did not find  in  any report.  Therefore I do not understand, why you are telling that holy bodhi tree is healthy…..

POINT 9.        As  your scientist Mr. Harsh from F. R. I said that sound don’t effect the tree. A tree is not living organism ? And every living organism effected by heat, sound, pollution – yes / no and then how your scientist is telling that sound don’t effect the tree. 4-5 thousand monks chanting mantra by mic from 5 am to till 6 pm and that huge sound will not effect a living organism !!!  In the web site of nature magazine you can read the effects of sound on tree …. so ??

POINT 10.      Show me from the CC Tv footage from BTMC that BTMC is giving water, fertilizer to Holy Bodhi Tree as per your advise. I want to see data from the last two years. I am challenging you and BTMC to prove it. Satellite data is available in NASA, RAW of India, ISRO to prove it. Therefore I do not understand, why you are telling that holy bodhi tree is healthy…..

POINT 11.      Look at the Two Bodhi Tree facing each other at west side of the Mahabodhi temple ( Holy Bodhi tree and sister bodhi tree ) and then look at the colour of the leaves. Holy Bodhi Tree leaves is in light colour and sister bodhi Tree is dark green colour. Colour changes took place in the tree out of nutrition. Therefore I do not understand, why you are telling that holy bodhi tree is healthy.  And I wonder, that your scientist gave me in writings, that there is no colour difference and deformed leaves are natural !!!

swamiji.04/2012