Was Kapileswar of Bhubaneswarthe Birth-Place of GautamBuddha? Kailash Chandra Dash Reader in History Binayak Acharya Government College Brahmapur-6, Orissa,India I

More than twenty-five hundred years after Gautam, the

Buddha was born to Mayadevi in the Lumbini

grove,archaeologists were on the verge of pinpointing the

spot where he had grown up. The exact location of

Kapilavastu where the Sakyamuni`s father Suddhodana had his

palace has been a point of debate for the scholars of

Buddhism and indologists. As early as 1861 when Sir

Alexander Cunningham, the noted archaeologist and

indologist,started to explore the sites of North India the

archaeologists began to make considerable research on the

exact location of Kapilavastu. Cunningham read the accounts

of the Chinese pilgrims and stated that Kapilavastu was

located eighty miles to the south-east of Sravasti. He

located Sravasti at the deserted Set-Mahet near Balarampur

in Gonda district. Eightymiles south east he heard of a town

called Nagar Khas in Basti district and believed it to be a

varient of Kapilanagara. His assistant A.C.Carlleyle who

followed him in 1876 did not find any ruins in Set-mahet and

so travelled another eighteen miles and reached Bhuilatal,

bristling with brick mounds on the banks of the Rawai. He

located the site as Kapilavastu which Cunningham also

accepted. Towards the end of the 19th century Dr.Alois Anton

Fuhrer, a German archaeologist working for the British in

India,believed on the basis of Buddhist literature that

Kapilavastu might not have been as flat as the Indian Terai

and looked further north. He suggested that Kapilavastu town

should be on the western bank of Rohini. He identified

Rohini with Jamuar flowing past Tilaurakot and located the

ruins of a town on its western bank. Tilaurakot remained the

accepted Kapilavastu for six decades. Other historians

accepting the view of Debala Mitra from 1961 thought that

Piprahawa of the district of Siddharthanagara of Utter

Pradesh was the Kapilavastu of Buddha. Although there is

controversy on the exact location of Buddha`s homeland

Kapilavastu-in Pirawaha or Tilaurakot, all historians and

archaeologists generally agree that it was in existence

somewhere in Nepal. The discovery of a votive record of

Ashoka`s pilgrimage to the village of Lumbini in an

inscription on a stone pillar found in Rummindei of Nepal

Terai zone in 1896 further confirmed it. Rummindei is about

a mile to the north of the village of Parariya, which is

about two miles north of Bhagawanpur, the head-quarters of

the Nepalese tahsil of that name and about five miles to the

north east of Dulha in the British district of Basti.(Mitra

1929:728) After about thirty-one years of the discovery of

Rummindei inscription a copy of the same inscription was

found in Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar, the present capital of

Orissa. This stone inscription(silaphalaka) was brought to

public notice by Haran Chandra Chakaldar of the Calcutta

University and it was procured in about March 1928 by

Birendranath Ray for his museum at Puri from the village of

Kapileswar. This discovery of the stone inscription in 1928

created a belief that Buddha was born in Kapilavastu which

was near Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar. The issue of the

homeland of Buddha in Orissa was lively in the phase of the

articulation of Oriya identity and the formation of the

separate province of Orissa in the 1920s and 1930s and the

nationalist writers and historians were attracted towards

this issue for a long time. The issue continued to attract

the notice of the nationalists even after Oriya identity

found proper articulation and in the 1970s it became a

central point of debate in Orissa.Interestingly this issue

is lively in Orissa in the 21st century and some scholars

and nationalist writers in Orissa claim Bhubaneswar as the

homeland of Gautama Buddha. Therefore in this paper two

important aspects have to be studied.

1- A description of the views and opinions of the historians

and the nationalist writers from 1928 till to-day on the

homeland of Buddha in Bhubaneswar on the basis of Kapilesvar

inscription.

2-The rejection of the claim of the nationalist writers for

Bhubaneswar as the homeland of Buddha on the basis of

several arguments and documents.

The main purpose of the paper is to address on the

unscientific and artificial way of writing history in

Orissa(fabricating history) when the trends of

historiography have taken a very rational and unbiased

approach in the world on the basis of this issue on the

homeland of Buddha.

II

An inscription was discovered in March 1928 from

Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar. In Utkala Dipika of 21st July 1928

Bhagaban Pati, an important Oriya nationalist, for the first

time, directed the attention of the Oriyas on the

significance of this stone inscription. At that time Pati

was very eager to articulate the identity of the Oriyas and

wanted to establish the home-land of Jayadeva in Orissa

against the Bengali claim. So suddenly he was attracted to

an Indian issue by the discovery of this stone inscription

from Bhubaneswar. He wrote in the issue of Utkala Dipika on

21st July-That Buddha who had shown the ways to this

superstition-led India, was once a native of Utkala(Jane

Utkaliya thile).This fact was forgotten by all the Oriyas. He

stated that this inscription was on the wall of the

Jagamohana of the Lingaraja temple of Bhubaneswar.In this

inscrption Buddhadeva has been described as a native of

Utkala. He further appealed to all the united nationalist

historians of Utkala(Utkalara Jatiya Aitihasikagana dalavaddha hoi) to

highlight this issue of the homeland of Budddha in Utkala.

Pati again in the issue of Utkal Dipika of 1st September 1928

revised his views on the newly discovered inscription and

stated that this insctiption was not discovered from the

wall of the Lingaraja temple, but it was discovered from the

village of Kapilesvara near Bhubaneswar-Lingaraja. He was

very much distressed then that the issue could not attract

the notice of any one of the historians of Orissa. He

insisted in that issue that instead of individual effort

united or collective effort should be undertaken for the

discussion of this serious issue. He also stated that the

historians had concentrated on the discovery of the

Rummindei inscription from Nepal Tarai and had claimed Nepal

as the birth-place of Buddha on the basis of that

inscription. Even some Bengalis had also declared Buddha as

a Bengali on the basis of this inscription by showing many

arguments in their favour. He did not accept the views of

the Bengali historians after the discovery of the

inscription from the village Kapileswar. He had also stated

that the Kapileswar stone inscription which was in Brahmi

character, refers to the village Lumbini and that Lumbini

was not Rummindei of Nepal,but it was Lembani Pragana of

Bhubaneswar.Pati by expanding speculation and nationalistic

articulation then demanded Bhubaneswar as the birth-place of

Buddha.His issue was discussed and debated in Oriya papers

and magazines like Utkala Sahitya,Sahakara and Asha. The

participants who supported and contested the issue were

Lakshmi Narayana Sahu, Satyanarayana Rajaguru, Kedarnath

Mohapatra and Jalandhar Deb.

In the Oriya newspaper Asha of May 5 1929 there was an

aricle entitled “Nepal cannot be the homeland of

Buddha”which was contested by Jalandhar Deb from Bamanda in

the Utkala Sahitya(monthly magazine in Oriya) in a separate

focus.(Utkala Sahitya,Vol.35,No-4,Shravana,Sala 1338) In that

article he had also criticised the view of Satyanarayana

Rajaguru which was published in an issue of the Utkala Sahitya

which claimed the birthplace of Buddha in Orissa. Deb had

clearly stated in that aricle-Two thousand one hundred and

eighty years after the Lumbini inscription by Ashoka the

inscription of Ashoka was discovered in the village of

Kapileswar in Orissa like the origin of many new Siva-lingas

in the different places of India. But by the origin of the

new Siva-lingas in India the significance of the Siva-lingas

like Bishweswar, Rameswar,Vaidyanath and Kedareswar cannot

be under-rated. Similarly the newly discovered stone

inscription of Kapileswar would not tarnish the value of

Lumbini inscription. Such an attempt would be a vain effort

and such effort to highlight the stone inscription of

Kapilswar would be faulty and harmful to the scientific

study of history. Then Deb after showing many arguments

declared in the focus that the Kapileswar stone inscription

was a fake one. Pandit Satyanarayana Rajaguru was in favour

of the opinion that the newly discovered Ashokan inscription

refers to the birth-place of Gautam Buddha in a village near

Bhubaneswar.(Utkala Sahitya,Vol.35,No-2,Jyeshta,Sala-1338) He

further stated that the Bengali historians could not accept

this inscription as an original document and that they had

taken it as a false copy of the original inscription found

from Rummindei of Nepal. He had blamed the historians of

Orissa for not showing interest on the research of this

aspect of Buddhism. Rajaguru in that focus clearly stated

that in view of the Khandagiri Mahatmya and the spread of

Buddhism in Orissa the fact of the stone inscription

discovered from Bhubaneswar was true. If we do not accept

the inscriptions and copper plate grants ,then on which

evidence the ancient history would stand?-it was his

question.

Kedarnath Mahapatra in Sahakara(Vol-13,No-4) in his article

on the birth-place of Buddha stated-Some historians have

accepted Bhubaneswar as the birth-place of Gautam Buddha on

the basis of the newly discovered inscription from

Bhubaneswar. He also stated that by hook or by crook we

cannot establish the birth-place of Buddha in Bhubaneswar.

on the other hand by attempting to falsify the well-

established historical truth the glory of our race would be

lost. He further stated that no true historian`s task was to

create confusion in the domain of history. He had taken the

inscription from Bhubaneswar as a copy of the old Lumbini

inscription of Ashoka. It does not refer to the Birth-place

of Gautam Buddha in Bhubaneswar. He concluded that the false

propaganda on the basis of the newly discovered inscription

was an indication of narrow nationalism(sankirnna Jatiyata).On

the basis of the following cogent arguments Mahapatra had

presented the issue in his focus.

1-There is no historical evidence to accept the Lembai

Pragana near Bhubaneswar as a corrupt form of

Lumbini-the real birth place of Buddha. On the other hand

Rummeli grama(village) has been stated in Buddhist

literature as a corrupt form of Lumbini.

2-It is not at all good on the part of the archaeologists to

enter into revolution in the domain of history(Samagra Itihasa

Rajyare biplava srusthikariva) by relying only on a copy of

another inscription without paying any attention to hundreds

of well-established evidences.

3-Lakshmi Narayana Sahu in the previous year(the year

before the publication of the article of Mahapatra in

Sahakara) had accepted Buddhesvari near Bhubaneswar standing

as a memorial to the birth-place of Buddha in

Bhubaneswar.But Mahapatra rejected this argument on the

ground that like Buddheswari of Bhubaneswar there are

places like Buddhanath of Bodakhandi and Buddhesvara of

Tigiria. In Orissa many places are connected with the image

and temple of Buddha.Hence Mahapatra argued that it is not

proper to accept Buddhesvari Thakurani as an evidence of the

birth of Buddha in Bhubaneswar. Buddhesvari temple was a

medieval structure and it did not belong to the time of

Buddha. Hence a historian should not tarnish the true image

of generally accepted and well-established historical truth

only on the basis of a simple place-name similarity-it was

the verdict of Mahapatra then.

There were many other focus on the birth-place of

Buddha in Bhubaneswar on the basis of the newly discovered

inscription from Kapileswar in the nationalist phase in

colonial Orissa by the enthusiastic Oriyas in the newspapers

and literary magazines in Orissa. Of course many persons did

not accept this type of nationalistic arguments then.

After the news of the discovery of the inscription from

the village Kapileswar Professor Haran Chand Chakaldar had

at first directed the attention of the archaeologists and

epigraphists to it. On that aspect he had published first an

article in Bengali Pravasi in July 1928,

(Pravasi,Shravana,Vikrama Sambat-1335).Thereafter Rama Prasad

Chand in another article in Prabasi in October 1928 had

accepted this inscription as a fake one. In June 1928 the

colonial Government became eager to know about this

inscription. The correspondence in this respect of Dayanidhi

Das, the Collector of Puri, to the Secretary(Revenue

Department) to Government of Bihar and Orissa of 5th

November 1928 was very interesting.(Board of Revenue

Documents,No-8125 of Puri District Office,Bihar Orissa Files

incorporated with Acc No.9186,File No-1 of 1928,Orissa State

Archives,Bhubaneswar)

The report states-”on enquiry it was found that the

stone slab in question containing inscription of the Ashoka

edict was lying in the museum of one

B.N,Ray,Contractor,Balukhand,Puri. On notice issued on him

he produced the treasure before me and stated that he had

purchased it for Rs.8 from one Brajabandhu Mishra of

Kapileswar, P.S.Bhubaneswar. The latter admitted having sold

the stone slab in question to this contractor for Rs.8.He

further stated that it was being kept in the Thakur

Ghar(where family god is being worshipped) of his house

since the time of his forefathers. I then held a detailed

enquiry into the matter on the spot and saw for myself the

place where it was said, the slab was being kept. I enquired

from the neighbours of Brajabandhu Mishra and all of them

were unanimous that the stone slab was being kept in the

Thakur Ghar of Brajabandhu from a very long time as his

ancestral property and not kept concealed from any

outsiders. From the facts revealed on enquiry I am satisfied

that the stone slab in question was not hidden in the soil

and it was sold to B.N.Ray,Contractor of Puri,who has got a

museum at Puri, for Rs.8 by the owner Brajabandhu Mishra. As

the value of the slab is less than Rs.10 and as it was not

hidden in the soil, it does not come under the definion of

“Treasure” as defined by Sec 3 of Act No-VI of 1878 and Sec-

16 of the Act is therefore not applicable in this

case.B.N.Ray,the possessor of the slab was asked by me to

sell it to Government but he expressed his unwillingness to

part with it as he intends to retain it as an exhibit at his

museum at Puri.A copy of this report was forwarded to the

Commissioner of the Orissa Division,Cuttack for information.

(With reference to his office Memo No.1362 dated 24-7-1928)

The report contains two important points for our study.

Firstly it states that the stone inscription from Kapileswar

was not discovered from the ground. It was not a part of a

stone Pillar as was the case with Rummindei inscription. It

was kept inside the Thakur ghar of Brajabandhu Mishra.Hence

there is reason to doubt its antiquity and originality. An

inscription of the phase of Ashoka is not expected to be

kept in a private house from the archaeological point of

view.Secondly the point of the stone slab being kept in the

Thakur ghar of Brajabandhu Mishra for generations cannot be

relied upon. This is because in 1972 before his death Nirmal

Kumar Bose had declared the story of the making of the

inscription which was thus a fake one.(See in this respect

the article of Umacharan Mohanty in Orissa Historical Research

Journal,Vol.XXII,No-2,1976)

In 1929 there was great research on this inscription

and an article was published by S.N.Mitra in Indian Historical

Quarertly(Vol.V,No-3 and 4) Mitra stated in his

article-”Since the publication of Chand`s note on the new

find(Pravasi,oCtober 1928) doubting the genuineness of the

record, the general impression has been that it is a

forgery. Those who have read his note which is in

Bengali,will,we think,agree with us that he has cast a doubt

without a sifting examination of individual letters of the

inscription in relation to one another as also to the other

Ashok inscriptions,particularly those in South India,which

are incised in Brahmi by a scribe whose habitual script was

Kharoshthi. If our contentions bear scrutiny,that is to

say,if there occurs between the two devices a word

represented by three Kharoshthi letters,whether may be its

final reading and interpretation,then the whole question as

to the genuineness or otherwise of the Kapileswar record

will have to be reopened and approached in the light of the

new aspect that it has now gained.” Mitra had accepted the

Kapileswar inscription as one of the possible additional

records at Lumbini. He further contended that the additional

inscribed stone slab was removed from Lumbini to Orissa. He

cited the example of Kharavela and his inscription at

Khandagiri near Bhubaneswar. The inscription of Kharavela

states that the latter triumphantly brought back to Kalinga

the seat of Jina, the pride of the people of Kalinga which

had been carried off no doubt as a trophy by one Nanda Raja.

Whatever the size or the material of the Jinasana,the fact

remains that it was in that distant age carried from and

back to Kalinga as a signal proof of victory.In the case of

the Kapileswar stone slab,even without imagining a contest

of rival kings bringing about its transference , we can

fancy the possibility of its removal under quieter

circumstances,say for instance,by some pious pilgrim or

chance visitor. He has commented that by whatever tests,the

Kapileswar record be judged,whether of palaeography or of

orthography,or of the Kharoshthi colophon,or of the

possibility of multiplication of records,or of the chances

of trasport,one cannot see eye to eye with Chanda in respect

of the charges he has preferred against the document.

In 1940s there was great debate on this inscription.

Chakradhar Mahapatra in 1947 in an address in Parlakhemundi

College had demanded Orissa as the homeland of Gautam

Buddha. In 1960 he had also described Kapileswar of

Bhubaneswar as the birth-place of Buddha in the newspaper

The Samaj. In fact it was Chakradhar Mahapatra who brought to

wider focus the old issue of the birth-place of Gautam

Buddha in Kapileswar. Following him there was wide

discussion of this topic in Orissa claiming Kapileswar as

the birth-place of Gautam Buddha in the newspapers in Oriya

in the 1970s.

1-In 1970 in the Sriram Chandra Bhavan of the Utkal Sahitya

Samaj Chakradhar Mahapatra presented a paper on the real

birth-place of Gautam Buddha in a meeting. In the paper he

had stated-There are two inscriptions as yet on the birth-

place of Gautam Buddha. One was discovered in 1896 as a

pillar inscription from Nepal Tarai. The other was a stone

inscription from Kapileswar of Bhubanswar in 1928.In the

Kapileswar stone inscription the name of the scribe and the

term Parinirvana of Buddha are present and Chakradhar

Mahapatra taking the purport of the stone inscription and

other evidence into consideration had proved that Buddha was

born in the village of Kapileswar in Utkala.Pandit Binayak

Mishra,Kalindi Charan Panigrahi,Surya Narayana Das,Kahnu

Charan Mohanty and Sridhar Mahapatra had participated in

this debate. Sridhar Mahapatra had even agreed to provide

fund for the publication of the views of Mahapatra in an

English article for wider circulation. The president of the

meeting Manoranjan Das had accepted this paper presentation

by Mahapatra as a real memorial for the Sahitya Samaj.

(Samaj,April 7,1970,p.8)

2-On third May 1970 the first session of the Buddhist

Congregation was held in Kapileswar with Radhanath Rath,the

editor of the Samaj,as the president. The historian

Kedarnath Mahapatra was the cheif guest and Chakradhar

Mahapatra was the cheif speaker. The president Rath had

stated-It is not wise and proper to avoid the issue of the

birth of Buddha in Kapileswar. It is also not proper to

accept it without proper consideration.Its real research is

necessary. In the meeting Chakradhar Mahapatra had given

evidence for the birth of Buddha in Kapileswar. On this

issue Kedarnath Mahapatra had stated-The arguments of

Chakradhar Mahapatra need considerable attention. Hence in

this zone archaeological excavation is very necessary for

the justification of the view on the birth-place of Buddha

in Utkala.(Samaj,May 6,1970)

3-On 25th may 1970 on the occasion of the Buddha Jayanti

there was a great meeting in Cuttack Town hall on behalf of

the Hitakari Sansad with Prananath Mohanty,I.A.S. as the

president. The chief speaker Chakradhar Mahapatra was

absent in the meeting for some unavoidable reason and so he

had sent his paper entitled “The Life-history of Buddha Deva

and the location of his Birth-place” to be presented in the

meeting. It was presented by his son Bharatendu Sundar

Rajaguru Mahapatra. In that article Mahapatra had stated-The

Mallas of Kusinagar had settled in Kapileswar bringing with

them the remains of dead Buddha.They had worshipped Buddha

after constructing a stupa there. In the meeting Gopinath

Das had stated-the inscription discovered from Kapileswar

needs a thorough study and verification.(Prajatantra,28th

May,1970)

The views presented by Chakradhar Mahapatra on the

birth-place of Buddha in Kapileswar at diffefrent platforms

were then supported by Sudhakara Pattnaik,Radhanath Rath,the

editor of Matrubhumi,Professor Manmathanath Das and even

Kedarnath Mahapatra who was a strong contester of this view

in 1928.But the great historian and archaeologist Professor

Krushna Chandra Panigrahi and Harekrishna Mahatab both

strongly contested this view.Mahatab on 21st may 1970 on the

occasion of the Buddha Jayanti in a meeting at Bauddha Vihar

in Bhubaneswar delivered a speech and said-It is unfortunate

that some people are expressing baseless and irrational

opinion on the issue of the birth-place of Buddha.

(Prajatantra,May22,1970)On the issue of the birth-place of

Buddha Panigrahi had strongly supported the view that

Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar could not be the birth-place of

Buddha. He further contended that if it was so the Buddhists

of the world every year would have come to Kapileswar in

stead of Lumbini. There is no lack of historical and other

related evidence to justify Lumbini as the birth-place of

Buddha The Kapileswar inscription was only a copy of the

Ashokan inscription at Lumbini and it was brought to Orissa

from Lumbini by a Buddhist pilgrim who had gone to visit

Lumbini.(Anyatha,Samanvaya Mukhapatra,Rourkela,1971)

Chakradhar Mahapatra was responsible in the 1970s for

the spread of the view that Buddha was born in Kapileswar

and ultimately his views were incorporated in the form of a

book in English entitled The Real Birth-Place of Buddha which was

published in 1977.In that book he had presented an

elaborate study on the birth-pace of Buddha in Kapileswar

and had given many arguments for the purpose. Some of his

arguments have been presented here for contestation.

1-Buddhadeva was born in a Sakya village in the Lumbini

region.Lumbini and Kapileswar were the parts of Toshali.

Still now we find the names and regions Lembai and

Kapileswar in Orissa.The stone inscription had been

discovered from the Kapileswar village.

2-Ashoka constructed the pillar in Kapilavastu where

Buddha`s birth-rites were performed. But the forest area

where Buddha was really born,later on became famous as

Bhubaneswar which actually is one of the names of

Buddha.Still this Bhubaneswar is present and has now become

the capital of Orissa.Buddha took birth 2540 years ago. It

is really surprising that even now one can notice the names

of Deogan for Devadaha,Kothadesh for Kola,Lembai for

Lumbini,Kapileswar for Kapilavastu which give sufficient

proof that Buddha was born here.

3-As Buddha,after his renouncement was accompanied by

Chhandaka the groom(Sarathi),the Sakya king Suddhodana named

the village of Chhandaka as Chandaka which still exists .

4-Like the name Devadaha there are

Patiadaha,Chudangadaha,Amsupadaha.Deogan was previously

Devadaha.

5-It is described in the Jataka that Buddha adopted Sannyasa

or asceticism on the bank of the river Anoma.Anoma means An-

Avam,i.e.,which is not a small one;so it is very great or

the Mahanadi,i.e.,Maha-great +nadi(river).In course of time

the river Anoma(anomanadi) was changed to Manada and then

again it was called Mahanadi. From Kapilavastu(Kapileswar)

Buddha crossed the river Mahanadi and went to Magadha

through Keonjhar of Orissa. That road can be seen even now.

6-According to the last words of Buddha,the Mallas were the

possessor of his ashes and bones. A stupa was built in his

birth-place Kapilavastu and the ashes and bones were kept

there. And the Mallas migrated with their kins to worship

the relics of Buddha there. It is very amazing that the

Mallas belonging to the Bashistha clan are still to be seen

in Kapileswar village of Orissa. They are now known as

Malias.

7-Buddha accompanied by his wife,son and some new disciples

entered Magadha, after going through

Pipili(Paipilla,Nimapada(Nimvaputta),Gopa(Maitreya Vana

afterwards

Konakamana),Kakatapura(karkativana),Kujang,Paradwipa,Jambudw

ipa,Mahakalapada,Lalitagiri,

Ratnagiri,Udayagiri,Jajpur,Dhamnagar,Bhadrak,Anandpur,Keonjh

ar,Champua,Chainbasa and Kharswan.Many stupas discovered in

these places testify to the fact that Buddha had followed

this route.

In this way Chakradhar Mahapatra by accepting the stone

inscription from Kapileswar as the original inscription of

Ashoka,by identifying and accepting several places of Orissa

with the sites described in Buddhist Jatakas and Pitakas and

by presenting vague arguments and facts had accepted

Kapileswar as the birth-place of Gautam Buddha. Any reader

who once goes through the text of Mahapatra will be

convinced at once that his conclusions are based on weak

arguments and supported by references having no historical

reliability. Deeper regionalism and sub-nationalistic

thought have overshadowed his thesis. Vain arguments, and

artificial ideas and unbridled speculative statement do not

help us in entering into the door of history. One can

imagine history ,but that can serve the purpose of a

creative fellow. It does not appeal to the historian having

scientific ideas and fact. It is interesting that even after

the nationalistic phase of Orissa history is over and has

lost its relevance with the march of radical and scientific

study of the past,several well-known elites of Orissa have

been moved by the views of Mahapatra in the 21st century.

Famous novelist in Oriya Santanu Acharya and Ajit Kumar

Tripathy,an IAS-two famous Oriyas having distinctiveness in

their career have now become the votary of this idea-the

birth-place of Buddha in Orissa. Ajit Kumar Tripathy,(former

Chief Secretary of Orissa Administration),a brilliant

product of Utkala University,has totally accepted the views

of Mahapatra and strongly pleaded that Buddha was born in

Orissa.Tripathy, a benevolent administrator and a devotee of

Orissan Culture and antiquities,has several articles written

in brilliant English and published in journals has

articulated this fact throughout the world.

(Tripathy,2004:p,7-15) Brilliant narratives but with no

cogent historical arguments his focus cannot stand before an

impartial historical discourse. In this faster changing

world of scientific ideas and technological progress and

particularly increasing universalisation of ideas,the views

of regionalism do not count much.Propaganda thorough media

and other communicative systems may help in the progress of

unscientific ideas for some days,but it will have no lasting

effect on the march of truth. As a student of history I find

no new arguments other than that presented by Mahapatra

which are now being used for claiming Kapileswar as the

birth-place of Buddha and so I would like to review the

arguments of Mahapatra for our context.My counter-arguments

are in the following;

1-Lumbini is not Lembai or Lembani.In the medieval phase the

names like Lembai and Sirai(Praganas) were well known in

their original names.Lembai Pragana is far away from

Kapileswar village. It is said that Gautam Buddha was born

in the Lumbini garden of Kapilavastu.Chakradhar Mahapatra

did not consider whether Kapileswar was within Lembai

Pragana or outside it or near it. In our opinion the term

Lembai was not corrupted from Lumbini.According to the

Ragulu grant of Anangabhima III Sirai as a district was

famous then in that name.Sirai and Lembai are thus original

words.Hence there is no reliable historical evidence in

connecting Lembai with Lumbini.

2-Another interesting argument of Mahapatra is about

Bhubaneswar.Bhubaneswar was so called because Buddha was

born in a forest which was called Bhubaneswar because Buddha

had another name called Bhubaneswar. Mahapatra accepted the

fact that Buddha was born in a forest in Lumbini. It is a

strange argument to convert the forest(Vana) into

Bhuabneswar.Mahapatra was probably glad to find the term

Vana in Bhubaneswar(Bhu+Vana+Iswara).It is an unbridled

speculation. Bhubaneswar was famous as a Saiva centre.

There was also progress of Buddhism in Bhubaneswar.

Bhubaneswar was also more famous as another name of Siva. In

the phase of the Guptas it was known as Ekamraka and then it

was famous as the centre of Kruttivasa. The name Bhubaneswar

came in the medieval phase as a shortened name of

Tribhubaneswar and that was an event of the period of the

Ganga kings in Orissa.(Dash 1997) Hence there is no

reliable historical evidence in connecting Bhubaneswar with

Buddha. Likewise the corrupt name of Devadaha is not

Deogan,because Deogan is available in many areas in

Orissa.At least In Sundargarh and Keonjhar ther are Deogans.

If we identify Devadaha with Deogan,several Devadahas would

appear in Orissa. The village ascertained for the worship of

god is called Deogan. The identification of Devadaha with

Deogan is also not correct from another point of view.Why

the term Daha was lost to Deva? It would have remained as

usual like Chudangadaha. Thus Devadaha cannot be

identified with Deogan. The original word Kothadesh cannot

be Koladesh.Kotha appears to be an original term. Kola as a

term is well known now-a-days.

3-The name of the Charioteer of Buddha was Chhandaka.

Another interesting speculation of Mahapatra is the change

of the name of Chhandaka into Chandaka which now exists near

Bhubaneswar. The entire area from Chudanga garh to

Bhubaneswar was famous in the Ganga phase which has been

stated in literary texts and inscriptions. The name of a

daughter of the Ganga king Anangabhima III was Chandrika.

Why should we not accept this Chandrika as Chandaka of the

present time? Chandrika Devi had constructed the temple

Ananta Vasudeva in Bhubaneswar. The important areas like

Chudanga Garh and Buali Garh of the phase of the Ganga

king Chodaganga are also included in the present Chandaka

forest area. Hence there is ground to connect this Chandaka

with Chandrika and most probably the area was under the

control of Chandrika Devi for which in course of time it was

named as Chandaka.

4-The meaning of the river Anoma is that which is not

small.There is no reason here to identify it with the river

Mahanadi. That which is not small may not necessarily mean

that it is big. It may also be medium(neither big nor

small).Hence the identification of Anoma with Manada or

Mahanadi is based on an impossible speculation. Again the

change of Anoma into Manada is based on a strangely

speculated conclusion. We do not get as yet any name like

this on Mahanadi.

5-The change of the Mallas of Kusinagara into Maliyas is

based on another irrational speculation. Chakradhar

Mahapatra has not presented the real history of the Maliyas

and their connection with Kapilavastu as stated by him is

also a new history. In the Kenduli grant of the Ganga king

Narasimha IV of the Saka year 1305(A.D.1383) there is a

reference to the Malaye grama in which was existed the

temple of Kapileswar. In all probability the village called

Malaye was the homeland of a definite group of people who

were called Maliyas. The temple of Kapileswar had existed

inside the village of Malaye in the Ganga period. Hence

there was no village called Kapileswar in the Ganga phase.

Possibly in the Malaya grama the temple of Kapileswar was

built. We may accept the view that Bhubaneswar was the seat

of two types of non-Brahmin priests called Maliyas and

Badus. The village named after Kapileswar may be possible

after the Ganga phase in Orissa. Kapileswar may represent

the seat of Kapila-the famous Saiva teacher. The temple was

rebuilt during the time of the Suryavamsi king Kapilendra

Deva.From the existence of the village Malaye and the temple

of Kapileswar inside it in the Ganga phase we may safely

argue that Kapilavastu cannot be connected with it. Moreover

Chakradhar Mahapatra did not present the fact of the

settlement of the Sakyas in the areas of Bhuabneswar. Thus

Kapileswar as a village came much after the Ganga phase in

Orissa. If we identify Pipili of Puri with Paipala,the name

of Pipili in Balasore needs more clarification from

Chakradhar Mahapatra. Many have now identified Pipili of

Puri as Pirapalli. It came into existence in Orissa after

the Muslim conquest in 1568.

Chakradhar Mahapatra has thus used many weak arguments and

entered into strange speculation for establishing the

homeland of Gautama Buddha in Orissa. There is definite lack

of reliable historical document(fact) in support of his

thesis.

III

We can present here many other arguments and views for

contesting the theory that Buddha was born in Kapileswar of

Bhubaneswar.

1-Archaeologists have discovered reliable remains on the

Sakyas of Kapilavastu in Piprahwa. More than forty seals

belonging to the Kapilava(vaa)stu bhikshu-sangha(Community of

Buddhist monks of Kapilavastu living in the Devaputra

vihar ) which seems to have been a monastery named after the

Kushan king Kanishka have been unearthed at Piprahwa.

(Srivastava 2006:207-212)Such archaeological remains are not

available in Kapileswar of Bhuabneswar.

2-If we accept Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar as a part of

Toshali,the theory of the birth-place of Gautam Buddha

either in Kalinga conquered by Ashoka or in Toshali under

his direct administration is based on a strange and

unwarranted speculation. We have not found this fact in any

historical record or data. Because the Sakya republic did

not exist either in Kalinga or Toshali. Were the officers of

Ashoka ignorant about Kapileswar-the claimed birth-place of

Gautam Buddha when they had placed two Special Edicts at

Dhauli and Jaugada? Ashoka himself visited Kapilavastu in

the 20th year of his coronation. Were the Buddhists also

ignorant about the real existence of Kapilavastu-the

birthplace of Buddha during the time of Ashoka. If Toshali

was well known as the homeland of Buddha before Ashoka

Ashoka must have started to preach Buddhism first from this

area. But we find the placement of two Special Rock Edicts

in this area years after the placement of 14 Major Rock

Edicts in the different areas in India and outside India. It

indicates that Toshali being a frontier area near the

conquered kingdom of Kalinga two Special Rock Edicts were

inscribed in it. From this point of view this area cannot be

connected with the real birth-place of Buddha which was

Kapilavastu. The existence of Sakya republic inside Kalinga-

Toshala kingdom does not also justify from the geographical

point of view.

3-We can also accept the accounts of the two Chinese

pilgrims-Fa Hian and Hieuen Tsang for locating the birth-

place of Gautam Buddha. According to Hieuen Tsang-To the

north of the town is a stupa which contains relics of the

entire body of Kashyapa Buddha.But these were built by

Ashoka Raja. From this point going south east 500 li or so

we came to the country of Kapilavastu. From this it is clear

that Kapilavastu was situated at a distance of 500 li in the

south-east from Sravasti.Cunningham states-From Sravasti

both of the Chinese pilgrims proceeded direct to Kapila

which was famous throughout India as the birth place of

Buddha.Yuan Chwang makes the distance 500 li or 83 miles to

the south east. If we consider the direction and the

distance stated by Yuan Chwang there would be no reason to

accept Kapileswar as the birth-place of Buddha.An

imaginative step in situating the birth-place of Gautam

Buddha in Bhubaneswar is the identification of

Svarnadri(Bhubaneswar) with Himadri(the Himalayas) on the

foot of which was actually kapilavastu situated. In all

Puranic texts and in Kumara Sambhava of Kalidasa the

location of the Himalayas was clearly stated. This confusing

identification is an expression of potent regionalism and

betrays all geographical description of India. In the

account of Yuan Chwang there is the description of four

kingdoms-Sravasti,Kapilavastu,Ramagrama and Kusinagara. In

this manner his travel account was laid down. What was the

reason for this manner of description? The answer is-the

four areas are all connected with one another. After the

description of Sravasti the Chinese pilgrim stated that the

birth place of Buddha was at a distance of 16 li to the

north-west of Sravasti. From that place(Sravasti) the

pilgrim after crossing 500 li to the south-east came to

Kapilavastu. From Kapilavastu the pilgrim reached Ramagrama

after crossing the forest route of 300 li to the east. From

Ramagrama he came to Kusinagara after crossing the forest

route in the north-eastern direction. Ramagrama was about

five yojana to the east of Lumbini.Buddha had left Chhandaka

at a distance of three yojanas from Ramagrama.Kusinagara was

about 12 yojanas away from Ramagrama. This description does

not warrant the thesis that Buddha was born in Kapileswar of

Bhubaneswar.

4-Buddha was born in the Sakya clan.The

Sakyavamsa,Suryavamsa,Ikshvakuvamsa are all related to one

another. Suryavamsis belonged to Ayodhya. Ayodhya was

connected with Kosala.Kapilavastu was under this Kosala

kingdom as a feudatory zone. It is said that this state was

formed by the command of Kapila for which it was well known

as Kapilavastu. According to Buddhist scripture it was a

part of Jambudvipa.It was also called Majjhima desa or

Madhya desa. In the east of this Madhya desa there was

Kapingala, then Mahasala and in the south-east there was the

river Salalavati. The Majjhimadesha of Jambudvipa cannot be

Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar. There were small states near

Kapilavastu and they were

Kusinara,Veshali,Alavapa,Ramagrama,Pava and Pippalivana. Can

we locate these areas near Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar? The

Buddhist literature describes about Kolanagara and the

Koliyas in detail. Rama, the king of Varanasi was affected

by leprosy and he left his kingdom to stay in the forest.In

one night he heard the cry of a lady and on reaching at the

spot he found that she was an Ikshvaku princess affected by

leprosy. Both were cured by the plant medicine of the

forest. The king married the princess and after clearing the

Kola trees he established a city which was called

Kolanagara. The descendants of this king were called

Koliyas. This story indicates that Koliya kingdom was near

Varanasi.Hence there is no reason to accept Kothadesha as

Kolarajya. The situation of the Sakyas in Kapileswar and

Koliyas in Kothdesha can thus be accepted as an interesting

literary creation, a paradigm for History fabricated.

5-The inscription of Kapileswar does not help us in the

location of the birth-place of Buddha in Orissa.Both Rama

Prasad Chand and D.C. Sircar have accepted this inscription

as a forgery.D.C.Sircar had deciphered the inscription and

had consulted all previous readings on it. In his famous

book entitled Indian Epigraphy in the Appendix section

containing Spurious Epigraphs there is a discussion on this

inscription. He stated that a modern writer after going

through the Rummindei inscription and the book containing

old scripts published in 1928 imitated the Nepal Tarai

version and prepared a new copy of it. Even Nirmal Kumar

Bose in his death-bed had declared the making of this

Kapileswar inscription which was a forgery according to his

view.(Pattnaik 2002;Mishra2004;Mahanty 1976)There are

additions in the Kapileswar inscription which are not found

in the Lumbini copy and this casts doubt on its

genuineness.Although Mitra has accepted the Kapileswar copy

as one of the possible additional records at Lumbini, there

is still doubt on the authenticity of the copy version. What

was the need of a stone version instead of a pillar version?

It also indicates that the scribe could not find a pillar to

inscribe and stone slabs were easily available for

inscription. Even if we accept the theory of Mitra we cannot

safely accept it as a copy of the time of Ashoka. Thus this

inscription does not help us in the location of the birth-

place of Buddha in Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar.

These arguments are enough to contest the view that Buddha

was born in Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar. In his recent focus

entitled Essays on Orissan Society James M.Freeman has come

to this conclusion and has gladly shared my views that

Buddha was not born at Kapileswar of Bhuabneswar.(Freeman

2009) Still more interesting is the view of Chittaranjan Das

in his insightful focus in Oriya in October 2010. (Das

2010:521-530) Chittaranjan Das has aptly stated that such a

claim of the people(Orissa as the homeland of Buddha) may be

interesting in the so called nationalist phase and that it

may bring cheep happiness(Sahaja Ullasa) leading them to

some unknown side. By this claim, as stated by Das, the real

message of Buddha for the world has been neglected. Such a

claim is definitely intended to make ourselves great and is

a passion which ignores the real message of Buddha to the

world at large. Thus the main contention of Chittaranjan Das

in his focus is not to be serious or emotional for the

homeland of Buddha in some definite corners of the world

(like Orissa) on the basis of some evidence, but to be

serious with his message which was meant for all people of

this world. He also stated that this claim (Buddha`s birth-

place in Orissa) is a lofty laughter for some years in

Orissa and it is not an indication of cultural progress.

IV

In the field of research particularly in the historical

and archaeological sphere artificial sources are being

largely used in Orissa and there is no systematic effort to

end such process. Some newspapers in Orissa do not ponder

over the fake documents and being excited by their sudden

discovery make them the highlights. In the colonial phase

and also in the post-colonial phase the use of fake

documents on the Orissa History was supported by many elites

of Orissa. But this type of discovery and research do not

help in unraveling the dark past of Orissa; on the other

hand this destroys scientific temper of history. The

location of the birth-place of Gautama Buddha in Orissa may

be an interesting news for the enthusiastic Oriyas, but

considering the vastness of original sources in favour of

the location in Nepal Tarai or Piprahwa the location of the

birth-place of Buddha in Kapileswar of Bhubaneswar seems

only a regional adventure and is not based on real

discovery of reliable documentary evidence and research.

References

1. Board of Revenue Section,Bihar Orissa Files,Orissa

State Archives,Bhubaneswar,Acc.No-

8125,1928,Acc.No.8126,9186.

2. Pati Bhagaban,”Buddhadeva Utkaliya?”,Utkala Dipika,July 21

and September-1,1928.

3. Deba Jalandhar,”The Birth-place of Buddhadeva”(in

Oriya),Utkala Sahitya,Vol.XXXV,No-IV,Shravana,Shala-

1338,p.146-157.

4. Rajaguru,Satyanarayana,”Odishare Bauddhadharmara

Mahatmya”(The Significance of Buddhism in Orissa),Utkala

Sahitya,Vol.XXXV,No-II,Jyeshta,Shala-1338,p.61.

5. Mahapatra,kedarnath,”Buddhadevanka Janmasthana”(The

Birth-place of Buddhadeva),Sahakara,Vol-XIII,No-

IV,p.361-364.

6. Mitra,S.N.,”The Lumbini Pilgrimage Record in Tow

Inscriptions”,Indian Historical Quarterly,Vol.V,No-III and

IV,1929,p.728-733.

7. The Samaj,1970

8. Prajatantra,1970.

9. Matrubhumi,1970.

10. Dash,Kailash Chandra,Legend,History and Culture of

India,Chapter-VIII,1997,Calcutta.

11. Srivastava,K.M.,”Kapilavastu,the Storm on its

Identification”,in Art,Archaeology and Cultural History of

India(V.N.Roy Felicitation Volume),part-

I,ed.C.P.Sinha,B.R.Publishing Corporation,New

Delhi,2006,p.207-212.

12. Tripahty,Ajit Kumar,”The Real Birth-place of

Buddha:Yesterday`s Kapilavastu,To-day`s

Kapileswar”,Orissa Historical Research

Journal,Bhubaneswar,Vol.XLVII,No-I,2004,p.7-12.

13. Mahanty Umacharan,”Two Anecdotes narrated by two

Archaeologists”,Orissa Historical Research Journal,Vol.XXII,No-

II,1976.

14. Rajaguru,Satyanarayana,”The Kenduli Copper plate grant

of Narasimha IV,Orissa Historical Research Journal,Vol.V,No-

I,1956,p.1-100.

15. Mahapatra,Chakradhara,The Real Birth-place of

Buddha,Cuttack,1977.

16. Anyatha,Samanvaya Mukhapatra,Rourkela,ed.Ramachandra

Rout,1971.

17. Pattnaik,Shyam Sundar,”Sakyamuni Gautam Buddhanka

Janmasthana:Bitarkara Anta Heu”(The Birth-place of

Sakyamuni Gautam Buddha:Let there be an end of the

debate),Samaj,29th September,2002.

18. Mishra Satchidananda,”Buddhadevanka Janmastahna

Nirddharana”(The location of the Birth-place of

Buddha),Jhankara,April,2004,p.15-20.

19. Freeman .James,Essays on Orissan Society,Prafulla

Pathagar,Jagatsinghpur,Orissa,2009.

20. Das,Chittaranjan,Gautama Buddha Evam Odisha(Gautam Buddha

and Orissa),Bartika,Oriya magazine,ed.Nabakishore

Mishra,October,2010,Dasarath Pur,Yajpur,p.521-530.

******This paper is an enlarged and revised version of the address of the

writer in Oriya language in the Bikalpa Sandhani Mancha,Bhubaneswar,

for Paramananda Acharya Memorial speech on the occasion of his birth

anniversary on August 29,2004.I am grateful to the learned participants of

the occasion at the Department of Anthropology,Utkala

University,Vanivihar for their evaluation of the issue and to Birendra

Nayak,Professor of Mathematics,Utkal University and the co-ordinator of

the programme for organising the occasion.

Email Id-dash.kailashchandra@rediffmail.com