Archaeological remains almost by definition belong to the nation irrespective of their religious origins. In that sense, the controversy over the relics dating back to the 6th century BC is somewhat meaningless. The relics — skeletons, bones, teeth, ashes and hair — relate to Gautama Buddha and his disciples. This does in no way mean that Buddhists have any a priori claim on these objects. A government-appointed committee has apparently recommended that these relics be handed over to a private religious trust. These relics are now kept and displayed in Archaeological Survey of India museums. It has been pointed out that this is not how the Buddha would have liked them to be preserved. He would have wanted them to have been kept in stupas. This controversy, in fact, deflects attention from the central issue.

The central issue concerns how the relics are being preserved. The issue is not whether they are being preserved in the way the Buddha would have wanted them kept. (It needs to be pointed out that given the paucity of information regarding the life of the Buddha and his views, it is not possible to say with certainty that he wanted his remains to be kept in one particular way. The practice of keeping them in a stupa may have been a later tradition invented by his disciples and followers.) There are international norms for preserving ancient relics. These norms are endorsed by archaeologists and followed by museums across the world. The point is to see if these norms are being followed in the preservation of the relics that are now being discussed. The question of intervening in the present situation can only arise if the norms are not being adhered to in their entirety. Intervention should not proceed on some flimsy religious ground. (It needs to be noted that the committee that made the recommendation had no specialist on the history of Buddhism and the life and views of the Buddha.)

Even if a change in the current mode of preservation is called for, the relics should certainly not be handed to a private foundation, whatever be the status of that foundation. Those relics, especially because they relate to the Buddha, belong to the nation, and therefore the State should bear the primary responsibility for their preservation. The ASI or the National Museum is the designated body for this kind of work. It is possible to think of forms of collaboration between the ASI/ National Museum and private agencies, but even in such cases control should be vested with the nominated State agency. In other words, an interested private foundation can provide the resources and the expertise to ensure that the relics of the Buddha and his disciples are preserved according to international norms. The government of India should not relinquish its responsibility in this matter. The Buddha is above religion.