Response to Carol Christiano

This is my response to Carol Christiano who considers Nepal to be a part of India when the Buddha was born.
----------
Carol: Thank you for allowing me to briefly educate you on the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent. What we now consider India or Nepal did not exist when Gautam Buddha was born. He was born in a principality whose capital was Kapilvastu. There were several small and large "kingdoms" during that time. The Maurya dynasty of the Magadh Empire gained prominence two hundred years after Buddha's death.

If you read the history of independent kingdoms during that time, you'll find reference to 16 flourishing empires known as "mahajanapad", or great countries. Some of them are Anga, Chedi, Gandhara, Kasi, Kosala, Kuru, Matsya, Magadha, Panchala etc. References to these independent kingdoms can also be found in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. Some of the rulers of these kingdoms even resisted the conquest of Alexander. It is in one such small Shakya republic of the Kosala kingdom, Siddhartha Gautam was born. How can you then say he was born in India? Therefore, a correct reference is: He was born in present-day Nepal.

There's no denial that Siddhartha Gautam spend his life as a teacher in nearby kingdoms that are now in India. Most of the rulers of these empires became his followers. Ashoka was the most prominent ruler of the time of the Magadha Empire who was also an ardent follower of the Buddhist ideology. He officially patronized the religion and appointed "Rajukas" to see that dhamma was followed in his kingdom. Besides sending missionaries led by his own son and daughter, it is also believed that he ordered thousands of stupas to be build across his empire and beyond. It is this expansion that helped Buddhism to spread as a religion in India and other parts of Asia and China. But this attempt doesn't undermine the historical fact about his birth.

If you have time, please read "2500 years of Buddhism" whose foreword is by S. Radhakrishnan, a religious scholar and India's second president.

The question of what constitutes India as a nation became clear only in the last 150 years or so, and politically only in 1947 when India and Pakistan were carved out. When the East India Company came to "India" in 1600 AD, they came to the empires and principalities that were eventually colonized by the British Empire in the next 300 years to form the present-day Indian nation. This political unit is different than the narrative of "India" found in the historical texts that is generically used to refer to the all the empires that existed in the Indian subcontinent, sometimes even extending up to Southeast Asia.

However, you must be aware that the modern day territory of Nepal (that includes Kapilvastu) and the Siamese kingdom (modern day Thailand) are the only two countries in the region that have not been colonized and have remained independent. Therefore, you like many others, are absolutely wrong to say that Nepal was "considered" India at the time of the Buddha's birth.

I hope you'll appreciate the importance of updating your knowledge on this issue. And if you are not satisfied by my explanation, you are free to "investigate it for yourself" just as you've said in your previous post.

----------
The above response was prepared after Carol Christiano responded to my comments on "The Buddha" Facebook page.

This is what I wrote:
PBS must get its fact correct on the birth of the Buddha. The preview video repeatedly mentions he was born in India. You are WRONG! Please be aware of the UNESCO's listing on Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha.

Please don't drag Gautam Buddha to controversy.

Carol Christiano's response:
Sijan: Shakyamuni Buddha was born 2500 years ago in "modern day" Nepal. At the time of his birth it was considered India, so I don't believe it is incorrect to state his place of birth India. There was no Nepal in existence at that time.