Episode #570: The AAS Conference in Vancouver brought together thousands of scholars and practitioners from around the world, creating a dense, fast-moving environment of panels, conversations, and informal exchange across the full breadth of Asian studies. Within that wider landscape, Burma surfaced as one of several pressing areas of focus, shaped by the realities of its ongoing crisis. Insight Myanmar Podcast was invited by the organizers to work from within the conference itself, setting up an on-site recording space and speaking with participants as they moved between sessions. The result is a series of short, real-time conversations—captured in the midst of the event rather than in hindsight—now shared with a wider global audience. This is the first of a four-part series.

Gita reconstructs the return of Buddhism to modern India not as a simple story of rediscovery, but as a struggle over ownership, identity, and political meaning. Beginning with Anagarika Dharmapala’s late nineteenth-century campaign to reclaim the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya, she follows the networks that linked India to Sri Lanka, Burma, Japan, and other Buddhist worlds across the Bay of Bengal. The result is a far wider picture than the familiar colonial tale of British archaeologists unearthing lost Buddhist sites.

Her argument is that modern Indian Buddhism emerged through mobility as much as excavation through pilgrims, monks, courts, relics, shipping lines, railways, and reform movements. Burma is especially important in that story. Burmese courts recognized and patronized Bodh Gaya long before Buddhism became newly legible to colonial scholarship, and later Burmese monks and pilgrims helped restore visible Buddhist practice at key sites in India.

That revival unfolded alongside a competing effort to absorb Buddhism into a Hindu civilizational frame. As Hindutva thinkers tried to define India as fundamentally Hindu, Buddhism became both useful and inconvenient: useful as proof of India’s past influence across Asia, inconvenient when Buddhists insisted on separateness or when Ambedkar turned to Buddhism as a rejection of caste Hinduism. And then, “Nehru chooses Buddhism,” Gita says, describing how the Indian state later used Buddhist symbols, relics, and diplomacy to project a different moral and geopolitical language after independence.

What remains unresolved in her account is the question of what kind of Buddhism has reemerged in South Asia. It is now highly visible, but that visibility can serve very different ends. Her interest finally is less in Buddhism as state identity than in whether an older ethical and transnational imagination can still be recovered.