The making of ‘world-class’ Bodh Gaya:

global visions vs local realities

RITIKA RAJPUT

(Graduate Student) and Aviram Sharma (Assistant Professor)

School of Ecology and Environment Studies,

Nalanda University, Rajgir, Bihar.

SMALL towns are often considered as nondescript entities lacking any allure in the rapidly urbanizing India. The academic research on cities in India is entirely skewed towards megacities and metropolitan centres. In the last three decades, megacities and metropolitan centres have been extensively studied, unlike small-town India. Bodh Gaya defies this trend. The place known for Buddha’s enlightenment has attracted a lot of attention in the wake of global Buddhist resurgence. Historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and area studies scholars have studied myriad dimensions of Buddhism and Bodh Gaya in historical and contemporary perspective.^1,2 However, the urbanization per se of Bodh Gaya has not yet generated much debate. The academic debate is more focused on the transnational aspects of Buddhism and less on the socio-economic transformations happening at the local level barring few exceptions, such as David Geary and Jason A. Rodriguez work. David has documented the evolution of Bodh Gaya from a hermitage to a heritage site over six decades and explored the emergence of transnational religious networks and the global significance of Bodh Gaya as a heritage site.³ Jason explored Buddhism informed development of Bodh Gaya with a focus on the role of NGOs in shaping urban development and described the worlding of Buddhism.⁴ In this paper, we will take this debate forward by analysing, governments, religious institutions (monasteries) and the local business community engagement with the processes of urbanization in Bodh Gaya. Notably, we will explore the urbanization from the perspective of worldling of Bodh Gaya. Unlike, the other studies, the focus of this study remains on the urbanization process of Bodh Gaya rather than on transnational aspects of Buddhism.

In the last two decades, the idea of worlding of cities has generated lots of interest. The aspirational cities of the global south are trying to transform and globalize through the reconfiguration of urban processes. Worlding implies analysing the ways in which cities are envisioning their future and planning hosts of interventions and speculative experiments to fulfil those visions. In the words of Roy and Ong, worlding is the art of being global, and the process is ‘inherently unstable, inevitably subject to intense contestation, and always incomplete’.⁵ The worlding is shaped by planning regimes of governments, corporate visions and middle-class aspirations. Studies carried by Abdoumaliq Simon in terms of worlding of African cities⁶ and Ananya Roy worlding of Asian cities⁷ are a few prominent examples. Within India, one can refer Michael Goldman analysis of the speculative urbanism of Bangalore⁸ and Asher Ghretner analysis of the making of world-class Delhi.

Interestingly, in most of these studies, the focus remained on megacities or metropolitan centres. Zérah and Denis argued that unlike megacities, small towns do not aspire to be world-class.⁹ Given such pre-conceptions, small towns in India were rarely analysed using the worlding lens. We argue, Bodh Gaya presents a unique opportunity to study the idea of worlding because of its strategic location and the emergence and revival of Buddhism in the region, especially in the last two decades.

Bodh Gaya: The Pursuit of a World-Class Buddhist Town

The geographical area of Bodh Gaya has doubled since 1961. The area of the town was approximately 11 sq km in 1961, which extended up to about 19.6 sq km in 2011.¹⁰ The population of the town increased from 6299 in 1961 to 38,439 by 2011.¹¹ Presently, Bodh Gaya is administered by a Nagar Panchayat (Notified Area Council) and for administrative reasons divided into 19 wards.

The post-independence history of Bodh Gaya is the history of displacement of villages and redevelopment of the land spaces around the Mahabodhi Temple.¹² Since the 1956 Buddha Jayanti celebrations in Bodh Gaya, the state has actively tried to shape the urban and cultural landscape of Bodh Gaya. The first Master Plan of Bodh Gaya (1966) envisioned a phased development program for Bodh Gaya. The first Master Plan of Bodh Gaya emphasized on two points: (i) Preservation of its supremely important historical, cultural and archaeological background. (ii) The necessity of channelizing physical and economic development in a manner that highlights the dominance of nature and spirit and does not either compromise or obscures the basic character of the town.¹³ The priority was given to archaeological sensitivity and agriculture in the vicinity. After more than four decades, under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the City Development Plan 2006 of Bodh Gaya was reformulated. The CDP 2006 envisioned Bodh Gaya as a ‘world Buddhist Centre, a centre of learning, a green, healthy, humane town with equitable opportunity for all and a pilgrimage destination.’¹⁴ The focus shifted from preserving the archaeological sites to developing the place as a global pilgrimage site.

The revival of Buddhism, since the 1950’s has led to the establishment of monasteries and religious institutions from several Asian countries in Bodh Gaya. Yet till the 1980s, there were merely six monasteries and a couple of hotels with limited pilgrimage activities. Bodh Gaya emerged as a major pilgrimage centre with a massive tourist influx only after 2000. As a result, Bodh Gaya witnessed a rapid transformation and became one of the major tourist sites in India during this period. David Geary argued that the rapid growth is the result of several changes at a different scale; the declaration of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2002, the opening of Gaya International airport and a relatively stable law and order situation in the state after 2005.¹⁵ The urban population of Bodh Gaya has not increased at a rapid rate, but the number of tourists visiting the town has increased many fold. According to the Tourism Department of Bihar, in 2001, only 206141 tourists visited Bodh Gaya, which increased to 1624497 by 2019. Interestingly, most of the tourists visited Bodh Gaya during a small period of the year, primarily in the winter months (October to March).

Many new monasteries, meditation centres and religious shrines were established after 2000. A good number of hotels, cafes and associated infrastructure too came up to cater to the increasing number of tourists in Bodh Gaya. According to the International Buddhist Council, currently, 62 monasteries are operational in Bodh Gaya. However, the actual number of monasteries is much higher. For instance, according to some respondents, more than 30 Thai monasteries are operational in Bodh Gaya. In the last few years, many monasteries from Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Bhutan and Tibet have been established in Bodh Gaya. The role of monasteries and religious institutions has significantly increased over the last few decades. In the current situation, Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee, International Buddhist Council and many other monasteries play significant roles explicitly or implicitly in shaping the urban processes of Bodh Gaya.

Apart from religious institutions, the hotel industry emerged as another crucial stakeholder at the local level, capable of shaping the urban landscape of Bodh Gaya. According to the data provided by the Nagar Panchayat, 44 hotels and guesthouses are operating in Bodh Gaya. However, the head of one of the hotel associations informed that more than 200 hotels and guesthouses are operating in Bodh Gaya. Most of these hotels started after 2000. The small town of Bodh Gaya has many luxurious hotels, which are primarily catering to international tourists.

In other words, state actors, monasteries and hoteliers emerged as crucial actors which are shaping the local economy and the urbanization process of this small town. Given their crucial role, we analyse how state actors, monasteries and the local business community (hoteliers and others) are envisioning the future of Bodh Gaya. We analyse the kind of worlding strategies employed by these stakeholders and how it impacts the other stakeholders and the local economy of the small town.

Varied Visions of ‘World-Class’ Bodh Gaya

The State and Central government wished to develop Bodh Gaya as a model heritage town and wished to showcase it as an emblem of cooperation between local and global actors. The mandate of the first Master Plan (1966) was to develop Bodh Gaya in a phased manner over the next two decades.¹⁶ Majority of the land was accorded for agriculture use for sustaining the local economy. At the same time, around 1,200 acres of land was earmarked for different developmental initiatives around the Mahabodhi Temple complex. The implementation of the Master-Plan and accompanying developmental projects led to the displacement of several villages around the main temple (such as Taradih, Mastipur).¹⁷ At the core of all these activities was the Temple Sector (around Mahabodhi Temple Complex). A substantial chunk of the local population was displaced from the core areas in the process of urban transformation. At the same time, many other activities and structures were allowed to operate in the Temple Sector. Majority of the developments were aimed to cater to the potential tourists.

Interestingly, in the first Master Plan, the contribution of agriculture as a source of livelihood was acknowledged and promoted in the peripheries. In the last two decades, two city development plans were prepared for urban development of Bodh Gaya. The City Development Plan, 2006 and CDP, 2011: Vision 2031 for Bodh Gaya under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission prepared by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) for the Department of Urban Development, Government Bihar. The CDP 2011 visualized the development of Bodhgaya as a cultural and educational hub for the region by 2030.¹⁸ The CDP (2006) had a provision of creating three types of zones in a two-kilometre radius, namely, the core with 500 meters, the buffer with one kilometre and the periphery up to two kilometres in all direction of the Mahabodhi Temple. During the last two decades, the Development Plans started emphasizing even more on the tourist demands and less on the concerns of the local populace. For instance, the CDP 2006 acknowledge that more than 50% of the population is employed in agriculture and related activities. Yet, it does not have any plan to engage with the agrarian issues in the town area. Over 67 % of the land area in Bodh Gaya is under agriculture and water bodies.¹⁹

There were allegations that CDP 2006 overlooked the interests of the local residents. The CDP 2006 was challenged in the Patna High Court by the Drikung Charitable Society through its General Secretary True Lhamo. They challenged the demolition notice given to the Amitabh Meditation Center for the creation of the core zone. The court directed that the idea of creating a ‘core zone’ was meaningless for the Mahabodhi Temple as more than 90 per cent of the core zone was already built. Hence, selective demolition (of the Amitabh Meditation Center) could not be allowed. The court also pinpointed that ‘the draft master plan was mere paper formality prepared at Delhi without any reference to existing local structures in and around the Mahabodhi Temple.’²⁰ Besides, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) too requested the local government to revisit the CDP (2006) as it was reported to be against the locals and Bodh Gaya’s living heritage image.²¹

In 2011, the revised version of the City development came up with the long term ‘Vision 2030’.²² The revised CDP (2011) envisions to ‘develop Bodhgaya as an international tourist destination by preserving its cultural heritage and by providing all basic infrastructure services to its citizens and tourists in an eco-friendly way.’²³ Based on CDP 2011, several government projects are being implemented, such as a Sewerage Treatment Plant, relaying of Water Supply Network and construction of a Cultural Center for Bodh Gaya.

The CDP (2006, 2011) vision of development of Bodh Gaya as a world Buddhist centre rhymes well with the visions of many monasteries operational in Bodh Gaya. For instance, Ven. U. Nyaneinda of Burmese Vihara stated, Like Mecca for Muslims, Bodh Gaya for Buddhists should be developed as Buddha Land. Similarly, Bhikkhu Pragyadeep of All India Bhikkhu Sangha stated that Bodh Gaya is the birthplace of Buddhism; it must be looked like one. Many of the monasteries envision Bodh Gaya to be developed like cities of Thailand. Rev P.C. Chandasiri, Royal Wat Thai Temple, stated that, Like Buddha Mandala in Thailand, Bodh Gaya should develop as one. More than 100 monasteries have such visions for the future of Bodh Gaya; these religious institutes aspire to develop Bodh Gaya as the land of Buddha what Abhishek Amar called ‘Buddhaksetra’.²⁴

According to most of the monasteries, the town still lacks aesthetic values. Beautification, cleanliness and greenery are the main components inscribed in developing the ‘the Buddha-land’ in their vision. The international monasteries wish to develop Bodh Gaya primarily as a pilgrimage centre catering to the Buddhist population. However, the local business community wishes to develop Bodh Gaya as a tourist site capable of supporting their livelihoods and aspirations. Many of the hoteliers, local vendors and residents argued that they are facing severe challenges in earning their livelihood in the current scenario. The hoteliers argued that the monasteries are operating as business hubs (like hotels and guesthouses) and catering to the needs of tourists coming from their respective countries. This claim was rejected by monasteries. According to the head of many monasteries, the monasteries only serve the ‘poor’ populace of their country, who are visiting Bodh Gaya as pilgrims.

Contrary to that, the local residents believe that the monasteries are thriving at the cost of local people. However, both these actors supported the idea of beautification and infrastructure development initiated by the state actors for transforming Bodh Gaya as a world Buddhist centre. The demands of the small vendors, populace dependent on agriculture do not get articulated either in the planning documents or in the public policies.

The first Master Plan of Bodh Gaya (1966) recognized the importance of agriculture for Bodh Gaya. However, the later CDPs (2006, 2011) failed to engage with the agrarian question. The CDP 2006 acknowledged that the local economy is unable to offer meaningful livelihood opportunities to all the residents throughout the year. The underbelly of Bodh Gaya presents a frightful scenario, where one can witness a vulnerable local population struggling to meet their ends. Livelihoods related challenges are the most pressing concern for most of the vulnerable population of Bodh Gaya. Livelihood related challenges are often reported from many small towns in India. The local vulnerable population do not wish for a beautiful town at the cost of their life and livelihood. One of the local vendors near the Mahabodhi Temple retorted that ‘Bodh Gaya is not for the poor. If they are not letting us live here, why should I think about the future of the town?’ Unfortunately, the trickle-down economics of this internationally renowned tourist town has not served them well. Economic inclusion is one of the major demands of this group. However, the government interventions and the dominant visions of major stakeholders remained focused on pilgrimage and the meeting the demands of international and national tourists and less on meeting the challenges faced by the urban environment and the local economy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, worlding lens enabled us to assess the myriad worlding practices employed by the major stakeholders (state actors, monasteries and business community) in Bodh Gaya. The dominant actors wish to develop Bodh Gaya as a world-class town catering to the needs of the tourists and the global Buddhist community. The varied visions of Bodh Gaya can be broadly divided into two categories; the first category includes those who wish to see Bodh Gaya as ‘the Buddha-land’, while the latter group consists of those who wish to have a city that has a place for them. This debate opens up the broader question, ‘who has the right over the city?’ or ‘who does the city belong to?’ Numerous scholars have demonstrated how the ideas of world-city, eco-city and smart cities ideas are espoused to cater to the aspirations of a specific section of society which in turn jeopardises the right to the city for others.²⁵ The public policies should address the concerns and the visions of the local populace along with the demands of the emerging international religious networks/populace.

1. D. Geary, M.R. Sayers and A.S.S. Amar (eds.), Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on a Contested Buddhist Site. Taylor & Francis, 2012.

2. A.S. Amar, ‘Buddhist Responses to Brāhmaṇa Challenges in Medieval India: Bodhgayā and Gayā’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 22(1), 2012, pp. 155-185.

3. D. Geary, The Rebirth of Bodh Gaya: Buddhism and the Making of a World Heritage Site. University of Washington Press, 2017.

4. J. Rodriguez, ‘Cleaning Up Bodhgaya: Conflicts Over Development and the Worlding of Buddhism’, City & Society 29(1), 2017, pp. 59-81.

5. A. Roy and A. Ong (eds.), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global (Vol. 42). John Wiley & Sons, 2011, p. xv.

6. A. Simone, ‘On the Worlding of African Cities’, African Studies Review 44(2), 2001, pp. 15-41.

7. A. Roy, ‘The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory’, Regional Studies, 43(6), 2009’, pp. 819-830.

8. M. Goldman, ‘Speculative Urbanism and the Making of the Next World City’, International journal of urban and regional research 35(3), 2011, pp. 555-581.

9. M.H. Zérah and E. Denis, Introduction: Reclaiming Small Towns. In Subaltern Urbanization in India. Springer, New Delhi, 2017, pp. 1-35.

10. City Development Plan, Bodh Gaya. Government of Bihar, Patna, 2011.

11. Census of India, 2011.

12. Op cited 3.

13. Op cited 3.

14. City Development Plan. Bodh Gaya. Government of Bihar, Patna, 2006.

15. Op cited 3.

16. The Draft Master Plan was revised in 1973.

17. D. Geary, Destination enlightenment: Branding Buddhism and spiritual tourism in Bodhgaya, Bihar. University of British Columbia, 2009.

18. CDP, 2006 and 2011.

19. CDP 2006.

20. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3539603/ last accessed on 28 May 2020.

21. F. Jing, G. Wijesuriya and A. Villalon, Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission to the World Heritage Property of Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya, 2011.

22. CDP 2011.

23. CDP, 2011: ES-2.

24. A. Amar, Contextualizing the Navel of the Earth: The Emergence, Sustenance, and Religious Transformation of Buddhism in the Bodhgaya Region (Circa. 300 BCE-1200 CE). The University of London, 2006.

25. A. Datta, ‘New Urban Utopias of Postcolonial India: “Entrepreneurial urbanization” in Dholera Smart City, Gujarat’, Dialogues in Human Geography 5(1), 2015, pp. 3-22.