Beyond “Buddha Was Born in Nepal”: A Question of National Responsibility

by Lhakpa Gelu Sherpa

Nepal is not only the birthplace of Lord Shakyamuni Buddha, but also a sacred land deeply connected with Buddhist history, philosophy, spiritual practice, and culture. The soil of Lumbini carries the historic distinction of having given the Buddha to the world. For Buddhists across the globe, therefore, Nepal is more than a geographical nation. It is a center of reverence, faith, pilgrimage, and spiritual inspiration. It is natural for Nepalis to take pride in saying, “The Buddha was born in Nepal.” But that pride should not remain confined to slogans. It should also be reflected in our conduct, hospitality, public policy, and national culture.

Highly respected Buddhist teachers from different traditions regularly visit Nepal to make pilgrimages to sacred sites, offer prayers and pujas, give Dharma teachings, and participate in religious programs. Great masters of the Himalayan Buddhist traditions, including Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug, and others, have millions of followers around the world. Their visits to Nepal are therefore more than religious journeys. They provide valuable opportunities to deepen Nepal’s connection with the international Buddhist community.

Visits by such eminent spiritual teachers can also enhance the international recognition of Lumbini, Boudhanath, Swayambhunath, Namo Buddha, and the ancient monasteries and pilgrimage sites of Nepal’s Himalayan regions. When Nepal is introduced to millions of their followers and to others interested in Buddhism, it creates significant potential for religious and spiritual tourism. The benefits can extend to hotels, transportation, local businesses, handicrafts, the preservation of pilgrimage sites, and Nepal’s broader tourism economy. Such visits should therefore be understood not only in religious terms, but also as opportunities for cultural diplomacy and tourism promotion.

Yet there is an unfortunate contradiction. At times, the arrival of internationally renowned Buddhist masters in Nepal appears to be viewed through a lens that does not fully recognize their spiritual and religious significance. Nepal has its own national security concerns, foreign policy priorities, diplomatic sensitivities, and legal procedures, all of which must be respected. But diplomatic sensitivity should not mean that every religious, cultural, or academic activity is automatically viewed with suspicion.

A recent example is the visit of His Holiness the 42nd Sakya Gongma Trizin Rinpoche, one of the highest spiritual leaders of the global Sakya Buddhist tradition. Considering his spiritual stature, the number of his followers, and possible security requirements, one would have expected appropriate security arrangements and distinguished guest facilitation at the airport during his arrival and departure. Instead, during his recent visit, he appeared to go through the same procedures used by ordinary passengers. If existing laws or protocols restrict the provision of special arrangements, the state should clarify those limitations and consider establishing an appropriate protocol for future visits by internationally respected spiritual leaders.

This naturally raises a comparison. When a famous artist or entertainment personality from neighboring India visits Nepal, we often see considerable security and facilitation provided in recognition of that person’s popularity and the need for crowd management. There is nothing wrong with providing such security. Where necessary, it should certainly be provided. But if such arrangements can be made for celebrities, why is even a basic level of distinguished guest facilitation sometimes absent when a Buddhist spiritual master revered by millions around the world visits the land of the Buddha? This is what many of us find difficult to understand. For the state, should the measure of distinction be popularity alone, or should religious, cultural, academic, and international significance also matter?

The issue, however, goes far beyond the airport treatment of a single Buddhist master. Recent developments concerning Buddhist studies and Buddhist institutions have raised broader questions. One example is the international seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, known as IATS. The seminar was scheduled to be held in Nepal from August 23 to 26, with scholars, researchers, and delegates from different countries expected to participate. The program was to be hosted by the Himalaya Centre for Asian Studies at Kathmandu University. The postponement of an international academic gathering of this nature should not simply be regarded as an ordinary event. It naturally raises questions about academic freedom, international research collaboration, and Nepal’s broader approach to Buddhist and Himalayan studies.

Tibetology, or Tibetan Studies, is not a political campaign. It is the systematic academic study of the history, language, literature, religion, philosophy, art, culture, archaeology, manuscripts, medical traditions, and social structures associated with Tibet and the wider Himalayan region. Tibetan Studies is an established academic discipline taught and researched at universities, research institutions, libraries, and Buddhist study centers around the world. Its importance to Buddhist scholarship is particularly significant because of the vast body of Buddhist literature preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

At international conferences of this kind, scholars from different countries gather to present research and exchange knowledge on language, history, philosophy, archaeology, art, religion, manuscripts, and Himalayan societies. Such academic activities should therefore be evaluated according to their scholarly character and objectives rather than being viewed politically simply because the word “Tibet” is associated with them.

Nepal itself is extraordinarily important to these fields of study. The languages, cultures, and religious traditions of Himalayan communities, the Buddhist history of the Kathmandu Valley, ancient manuscripts, centuries-old cultural and commercial relations between Nepal and Tibet, and Buddhist knowledge traditions that developed across the Himalayas could make Nepal a natural center for international scholarship. Scholars, students, and researchers coming from around the world to study these subjects should not be regarded as a problem for Nepal. With proper management, their presence can become a significant academic, cultural, and economic opportunity.

This leads to a serious question. Should every religious, cultural, linguistic, historical, or academic subject associated with Tibet be viewed only through the lens of China’s policy?

Nepal’s commitment to friendly relations with China and to the One China policy is both understandable and important. China is a major neighbor and development partner of Nepal, and being sensitive to its legitimate security concerns is part of Nepal’s diplomatic responsibility. But another truth is equally important. Nepal is an independent and sovereign nation. Nepal should have the confidence to determine, according to its own Constitution, laws, and national interests, what religious activities may take place on its territory, what subjects its universities may research, what aspects of history and culture may be discussed academically, and how its centuries-old Buddhist heritage should be preserved.

Sovereignty does not mean ignoring the sensitivities of neighboring countries. It means maintaining balanced relations with them while respecting one’s own national interests, Constitution, history, and cultural identity. Friendship should not require a nation to close the door on academic inquiry. If an activity is genuinely political in nature, the state has every right to address it under existing laws. But treating religion, culture, history, and academic research in the same manner as political activism will not serve Nepal’s long-term intellectual and cultural interests.

Another development causing concern within Nepal’s Buddhist community is the recent government process involving the Buddhist Philosophy Promotion and Monastery Development Committee. Under the Government of Nepal’s governance reform roadmap, a restructuring process has reportedly moved forward with recommendations either to dissolve the committee or integrate it into another government body. Buddhist organizations and stakeholders across the country have expressed serious objections. Administrative reform and institutional restructuring may sometimes be necessary. However, decisions affecting an institution of this nature require meaningful consultation with the communities concerned, careful assessment of long-term consequences, and recognition of the institution’s historical and cultural role.

Monasteries are not simply buildings where people worship. For centuries, within Nepal’s Himalayan and Buddhist communities, monasteries have preserved religion, language, scripts, art, philosophy, manuscripts, sculpture, thangka painting, traditional education, and collective memory. In many remote Himalayan regions, monasteries function not only as religious institutions but also as centers of local culture, education, and social cohesion. Changes to the state institutions responsible for monasteries, whether through restructuring, integration, or dissolution, therefore cannot be evaluated solely in terms of administrative expenditure or the number of government bodies.

Instead, we should ask whether, in the country where the Buddha was born, an institution established to promote and preserve Buddhist philosophy and monasteries should be made more effective, transparent, and capable, or whether its very existence should be weakened. If the present structure has weaknesses, it should be reformed. If greater transparency is needed, transparency should be strengthened. If its performance is inadequate, it should be restructured. But dissolving or integrating such an institution without ensuring meaningful representation and participation of Buddhist communities risks creating unnecessary mistrust between the state and those communities.

From the perspective of a Buddhist practitioner, this issue is particularly sensitive. The Buddha taught us compassion rather than hatred, wisdom and discernment rather than blind belief, and interdependence rather than division. Therefore, this discussion should not become anti-China or pro-India, nor should its purpose be to disrespect any country. The question is much simpler. How confident is Nepal in its own Buddhist heritage?

It is not enough for us simply to keep telling the world, “The Buddha was born in Nepal.” If being the birthplace of the Buddha is a matter of national pride, then creating an environment where Buddhist philosophy, teachings, history, and culture can be freely studied is a national responsibility. Respecting the teachers who carry the Buddha’s teachings around the world is part of our cultural values. Welcoming scholars who come from across the globe to study Buddhism and the Himalayas is an opportunity. Making decisions concerning our own religious and cultural heritage according to our national interests is an exercise of sovereignty.

The time has come for Nepal to ask itself some difficult questions. If we can provide security and facilitation when celebrities arrive, why can we not provide dignified facilitation when internationally respected Buddhist spiritual leaders visit? Why should Nepal be apprehensive about hosting an international academic gathering such as IATS, attended by scholars from many countries? In the birthplace of the Buddha, why are we discussing dissolving or merging an institution dedicated to promoting Buddhist philosophy and monastery development rather than discussing how to strengthen it? Most importantly, must every Buddhist, Himalayan, or Tibet-related subject be viewed only through a geopolitical lens?

Nepal must maintain friendly, respectful, and balanced relations with both of its giant neighbors. Good relations with neighboring countries are unquestionably in Nepal’s national interest. But such relationships should not come at the expense of Nepal’s historical consciousness, cultural identity, religious freedom, academic freedom, or independent decision-making capacity. The true strength of balanced diplomacy lies in respecting the sensitivities of others while defending one’s own sovereignty and national dignity with equal confidence.

To say “The Buddha was born in Nepal” is our pride. To respect the Buddha’s teachings and the masters who keep those teachings alive is our culture. To protect an environment where Buddhist knowledge can be freely studied and researched is our responsibility. To strengthen, modernize, and make more effective the institutions that preserve Nepal’s Buddhist heritage is our duty. And to make decisions on all these matters according to our own Constitution, national interests, and sovereign rights is the true identity of an independent Nepal.