Chinese diplomacy is a culinary delight

Chinese 'sailors' on the 'Yongshu' Reef in the South China Sea

My article Chinese diplomacy is a culinary delight appeared today in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

Beijing can't afford to have many enemies. When it becomes too ‘hot' on one front, it needs to make friends on another. It is making friends the way that one slowly cooks seafood to make ‘Buddha jump over the wall’

News agency Xinhua recently admitted that the ‘rift’ over the South China Sea between Beijing and Washington has heightened tensions in the region, “but dispute over this body of water is only ‘an episode’ in China-US relations, instead of a flashpoint as portrayed or feared by many”.
The Chinese news agency further commented: “At a time when the futures and fortunes of China and the United States are more closely intertwined than they have ever been, it is imperative for them to always look for the bigger picture, and prevent such solvable tensions evolving into dangerous tinderbox.”
Behind these words, it is clear that Beijing can’t afford to have too many enemies at the same time and when it becomes too ‘hot’ on one front, Beijing needs to make friends on another.
What about the Middle Kingdom’s other foes, namely, individuals or groups opposing the party within China? Beijing is trying to deal with them in a novel way, which might also apply to ‘external unfriendly’ powers.
In your opinion, what could make Buddha jump over a wall? According to a Chinese saying, it is a special stew made of seafood and poultry: It is apparently so yummy that even Buddha would jump over a wall to taste it.
Why is it so tasty? Simply, because the ingredients have slowly simmered for a long, very long time over a low flame. President Xi Jinping recently mentioned the famous dish: “Make friends, the way that one slowly cooks seafood and poultry stew to make ‘Buddha jump over the wall’,” he advised.
He was then speaking about ‘internal friends’ during a United Front Work conference. The UFW Department is a party organ which makes the link between the Chinese Communist Party and non-party organisations, including business people like Mr Jack Ma’s Alibaba, but also Tibetans, Uyghurs or ‘compatriots’ from Taiwan.
During the conference, Mr Xi explained that the UFW aims at making more friends, adding: “However, in order to make this kind of friend, you can’t hurry it as if you are cooking fast food, but rather you should put in the kind of effort as if you are slowly cooking the famous Chinese dish.”
To demonstrate his point, the Chinese President cited the case of former Premier Zhou Enlai and his ‘friendship’ with the 10th Panchen Lama: “On April 27, 1950, when the Panchen Lama arrived in Beijing for the first time: that night he was received by Premier Zhou and invited to dinner. They discussed everything from customs, traditions, and daily life to the victory of the Chinese revolution and the future of Tibet. Premier Zhou’s openness and sincerity deeply influenced the Panchen Lama.”
Mr Xi then compared the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama: “In 1956, the Indian Government invited the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama to India to participate in celebrations for the 2,500th anniversary of Sakyamuni Buddha achieving nirvana. The Panchen Lama fought against separatist forces and returned home on schedule, in a sharp contrast to the Dalai Lama who delayed his return.”
This example means that ‘friends’ have to obey to the party; the Dalai Lama did not. Before returning to Tibet, the Dalai Lama attended a religious function in Kalimpong and this despite the objections of Zhou Enlai who considered Kalimpong ‘a nest of spies’. The Panchen Lama ‘obeyed’ and immediately returned to Tibet.
Mr Xi’s conclusion is interesting, prospective friends “should be treated with the same effort required to make the dish, with more contacts, more close talks, more assistance and emphasising respect, equality and sincerity”. But like the Panchen Lama, they should listen to the party.
China’s ‘external’ neighbours too should ‘listen’ to Beijing, for the purpose, they may need to be ‘cooked’ over a long time. In recent months, China has been extremely aggressive in the South China Sea, extending her territorial waters by nearly 1,000 kilometers.
Beijing pretended to be furious when Washington sent a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft to monitor China’s deployments in the region; land-reclamation however relentlessly continued.
Attack being the best defence, Liang Fang, a professor at China’s National Defence University, violently accused the US ‘of launching its Asia’s repivot’ in The Global Times and “blockade China and unite with its allies Japan and the Philippines against China”, though he said that “China’s land reclamation efforts on disputed islands and reefs in the South China Sea will reduce the US’s projection power in the region.” He also added: “This makes the South China Sea a major strategic hotspot, which will decide the new world order.”
In other words, China is fighting a battle to dominate its close neighbours and stop the US from any interference in these designs.
In the meantime, sina.com published a sideshow with pictures taken on one of the reefs in the South China Sea. It shows good-looking female sailors (most probably models) posing on ocean breakwalls, while watering vegetable gardens, with pigs in a pen in the background. The title is “Gratifying results on China’s Yongshu Reef: Building vegetable greenhouses and growing fruit trees.”
It means that China had already succeeded in establishing its presence far away from its coastal areas; now, the next stage: To make friends, starts. General Fan Changlong, the powerful vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, visited Washington for the purpose and after a meeting with the US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, he declared: “The two nations should take the higher ground to look into the far future by paying more attention to other, more important regional and international issues.”
As Xinhua nicely put it, the relationship between Beijing and Washington has matured; the news agency spoke of “a new type of major-country relations, which features mutual benefits and a win-win cooperation.” Obviously, as the Chinese girls/models show, Beijing’s work on the reefs is over.
While taking on the US in the South China Sea, Beijing has been ‘cooking’ Tokyo. Reuters reported that in July, Japan and China “will conclude an agreement to define procedures for communication between their naval vessels and military aircraft during unexpected encounters to reduce the risk of confrontation.” One way to make friends without renouncing any claims!
What about India? Here too, Beijing wants to gain time. While turning down Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposal to exchange maps of the Line of Actual Control, a move which seemed most reasonable, Beijing has started speaking of a new sauce, ie comprehensive measures. Mr Huang Xilian, an official in the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs told a group of Indian journalists in Beijing: “We have to seek some kind of comprehensive measures, not only one measure to control and manage the border to ensure peace and tranquility along the border.”
But does it make sense to be cooked into becoming China’s ‘friend’, when LAC maps can’t even be exchanged?

Will Buddha jump over the wall?

Do you know what could make Buddha jump over a wall?

According to a Chinese saying, it is a special stew made of seafood and poultry.
It is apparently so yummy that even Buddha (or at least Chinese monks) would jump over a wall to taste it.
It might not be true for Tibetan monks, as this dish originates from Fujian Province; their taste may be different. Anyway, one of the characteristics of the preparation is that all the ingredients have to slowly simmer for a long long time over a low flame.
It is said the former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia and many others tasted the delicacy, while in China.
President Xi Jinping recently mentioned the famous dish: “make friends, the way that one slowly cook seafood and poultry stew to make ‘Buddha or monks jump over the wall’.”
The story was used by Xi during the United Front Work (UFW) Conference, during which Xi explained that the United Work “aims to make more friends, especially some close friends who are able to speak their minds.”
According to the Chinese media, Xi would have added: “However, in order to make this kind of friend, you can’t hurry it as if you are cooking fast food, but rather you should put in the kind of effort as if you are slowly cooking the famous Chinese dish made of lots of seafood and poultry.”
To demonstrate his point, the Chinese President cited the case of former Premier Zhou Enlai with the 10th Panchen Lama Chökyi Gyaltsen.
Xi told the UFW Conference that when, on April 27, 1950, the Panchen Lama arrived in Beijing for the first time: “that night he was received by Premier Zhou and invited to dinner. They discussed everything from customs, traditions, and daily life to the victory of the Chinese revolution and the future of Tibet; from the accommodations and itinerary to the importance of national unity. Premier Zhou’s openness and sincerity deeply influenced the Panchen Lama.”
Let us not forget that the young Panchen Lama who had just been selected by the Communist Party as the true incarnation of the 9th Panchen Lama, (while the Lhasa candidate was rejected by Mao), was only 12 years old.
Xi continued his story: “In 1952, the Panchen Lama returned to Lhasa to meet with the Dalai Lama. He remembered the instructions of Premier Zhou, to unite with the Dalai Lama and submit to the current situation.”
By that time, the Tibetan government had had to sign on the dotted and had 'accepted' that Chökyi Gyaltsen was the true incarnation of the 9th Panchen Lama.
Then, Xi Jinping compared the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama: “In 1956, the Indian government invited the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama to India to participate in celebrations for the 2,500th anniversary of Sakyamuni Buddha achieving nirvana. The Panchen Lama fought against separatist forces and returned home on schedule, in a sharp contrast to the Dalai Lama who delayed his return.”
Historically, it is not fully  correct. Before returning to Tibet, the Dalai Lama had to visit Kalimpong (against Zhou Enlai’s advice) to meet devotees, at that time the Panchen Lama decided to immediately return to Tibet. It can’t be called a ‘delay’; it was just part of the Tibetan leader’s program.
Xi continued his argument: “During the ‘Cultural Revolution’, the Panchen Lama was severely denounced, and his situation was critical. After Premier Zhou learned of this, he quickly arranged for him to be protected by the military.”

Xi forgets an important detail: the 70,000 character petition (‘A Poisoned Arrow’, according to Mao) which cost the Panchen Lama 14 years in jail in the most horrendous conditions.
Where was Zhou Enlai then?
Xi knows perfectly well this episode, as his father Xi Zhongxun was ‘purged’ two months after the Panchen Lama. Read my post on the subject.
Xi nonetheless affirmed: “Premier Zhou and the 10th Panchen Lama formed a great friendship over a long period of time and numerous trials, despite their difference in age.”
Xi’s conclusions are however interesting, he argued that the structure of the United Front has undergone great changes, and the concept of social thought is becoming more diverse. He mentioned two issues which have come up for United Front Work: “One is not paying attention to ideological guidance and not being concerned with ideological activities of people outside the Party. The other is a phenomenon of being arrogant, purely bureaucratic, and rigid.”
Xi Jinping believes that non-Party people should be treated with the same effort required to make the dish with more contacts, more close talks, more assistance and emphasizing respect, equality and sincerity.
Will it make Tibetans, in particular Buddhist monks, ‘Jump over the Wall’? Only future will tell.

I am posting here some excerpts of From The Heart of the Panchen Lama (Major Speeches and a petition: 1962–1989), published by the Department of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala.
The Panchen Lama made this statement in 1987 at the TAR Standing Committee Meeting of the National People’s Congress in Beijing. During his lengthy speech, the Panchen Lama refers several times to the 70,000 character petition to Zhou.
If he was listening from his from his Marxist Paradise, Zhou Enlai must have turned in his grave.

On the annexation of Tibet
In the Seventeen-Point Agreement [in May 1951], it was emphatically stated that there would be no change in the power of the Tibetan local government until the introduction of democratic reforms. The same promise was made to the Tashilhunpo monastic authorities. However, what happened later could be summed up by this dictum: ―Criticizing the old system from the perspective of a new ideology.
This kind of practice is not very ethical. A scientist must arrive at his decision according to whatever is proved right scientifically. Tibetan aristocrats had served the government for generations. They were deeply devoted to the Dalai Lama and turned to him for refuge both in this and the next life. In the same way, the masses have deep respect and devotion. This is an undeniable fact. Later on, however, the aristocrats were accused of being the leaders of the rebellions and persecuted. This, I think, was an absolutely wrong thing to do. Of course, I was criticized and punished for this. But truth is timeless. It always remains the same. Undoubtedly, there were mistakes in my petition. But I have never been wrong in speaking up. The mistakes in the content of my petition are mistakes, both today and in the past. But there should be a clear dividing line, spelling out where I went wrong and where I was right.
Talking about Lhoka, first the Khampa guerrillas were based there. But when the Dalai Lama passed through there, people happily donated butter, barley flour and other provisions without being asked for them. This was, of course, a spontaneous gesture of love by the people. Later on the people who offered these things were treated as active members of the resistance. How can you do such a thing? This is something that everyone should know. Speaking of myself, in those days whenever I passed by, people would show love and devotion to me. Now should this be construed as a politically motivated act? Amongst other things, they showed respect to me because they were religious-minded and it is a Tibetan custom. Due care and consideration must be shown to customs and traditions that are special to Tibet.
Quelling the rebellions and introducing reforms was right in principle. But there was a strong leftist tinge to the way this was done. Such things should not happen again and they must be rectified. During the last three decades of communist rule there have been many good things done and many bad things also. There were considered in the Sixth Meeting of the Eleventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China, and were publicized internationally.
Owning up to our mistakes will not damage the Party’s image; rather it will help build it.
Speaking about the former comrades in the Tibet Military Command Centre and the Chengdu Military Command Centre, some comrades told me that they should not have done what they did. This is a healthy attitude. We frequently say that great achievements were made with your sweat in the liberation and reformation of Tibet and that the people of Tibet will never forget this. This is an honest statement. However, you did make a great deal of mistakes, and these also in Tibet. These too, we will never forget. What I am saying is for the purpose of rectifying these mistakes. If we can do this, we can make progress. I am saying this with the best of intentions.
I will tell you a more personal story at this point. The Government of the Kashag spearheaded the rebellion [in March 1959]. Those of us at the labrangs (lama households) were not party to any agitation. In the beginning, we were told great things about peaceful reforms and policies of fraternal relations. However, when the reforms were undertaken, people belonging to our establishments were subjected to untold suffering. This filled people with disgust and disbelief. Most of the members of the local Tibetan government fled from Tibet. A handful, who stayed back, were praised and appointed to government jobs as shining examples of a progressive element. Our people who stayed back in solidarity with China were subjected to unthinkable suffering. Being in Lhasa, as I was at that time, I did not suffer so much. But all my family members were subjected to thamzing (public struggle sessions).
There was one woman, a wife of one of my staff, who was also arrested. One day, when she was called into the interrogation chamber, she muttered, ―This man called Panchen had caused me so much suffering that I will die from depression. This utterance led the authorities into believing that she would say something incriminating about me, a much-awaited chance for the authorities to take punitive measures against me. They immediately called the scribes to record her testimony. Then she went on, ―We made a big mistake by following this man called Panchen and not participating in the fight against the Chinese. If he had led us in rebellion against the Chinese, our condition today would be better than this. Because, initially, we would have killed as many Chinese as possible and then fled to India, which would have been easy since India is near our village. But this man told us to be progressive and patriotic. And this is what we get for following his advice. Now it is not possible for us to flee to India. Our people, both men and women, are being persecuted here. We are experiencing hell on earth.
If there was a film made on all the atrocities perpetrated in Qinghai province, it would shock the viewers. In Golok area, many people were killed and their dead bodies rolled down the hill into a big ditch. The soldiers told the family members and relatives of the dead people that they should all celebrate since the rebels had been wiped out. They were even forced to dance on the dead bodies. Soon after, the family members and relatives were also machine-gunned. They were all buried there.
Actually, rebellions did not occur in all these areas. In Kham, of course, there were rebellions in many places. In Jharoong Parpo and Mili, both in Amdo, the nomads collected their guns and handed them over to the Chinese authorities. They were praised and garlanded during a special function. After the function they were driven to their villages where they were immediately arrested and imprisoned for a long time. There were some very old people among them.
In Amdo and Kham, people were subjected to unspeakable atrocities. They were shot in groups of ten or twenty. I know that it is not good to speak about these things. But such actions have left deep wounds in the minds of people. There are some officials who always leave behind a bad legacy. What is the purpose of doing this? The guilty must, of course, be punished. But what is the use of leaving behind a bad legacy. People who persist in doing this are really stupid. But there are some who consider these people very wise and capable. Comrade Wu Jinhua has a plan to investigate the methods and mistakes made by some of the officials in putting down the Tibetan rebellion. I feel this investigation needs to be done with the utmost diligence.
Mao Zedong said clearly in his speech that he would not only kill the senior Jiang Jieshi, but also the junior ones. Although, I, the senior Panchen, managed to survive, many junior Panchens were killed and tortured in prisons.
In Qinghai, for example, there are between one to three or four thousand villages and towns, each having between three to four thousand families with four to five thousand people. From each town and village, about eight hundred to one thousand people were imprisoned. Out of this, at least three to four hundred people died in prison. This means almost half of the prison population perished. Last year, we discovered that only a handful of people had participated in the rebellion. Most of these people were completely innocent.
In my 70,000-character petition, I mentioned that about five percent of the population had been imprisoned. According to my information at that time, it was between ten to fifteen percent. But I did not have the courage to state such a high figure. I would have died under thamzing if I had stated the real figure. These are serious matters as far as Tibet is concerned. If we pay only lip service to these kinds of mistakes and do nothing to redress them there will be equally serious consequences. People may not like what I am saying. But I am saying this out of my love for the motherland.

Religion: a Poison no more?

The 'rush' to Tibetan monasteries

In August, I wrote on this blog: "Communist China is fast becoming expert in Tibetan Buddhism. Unfortunately, though Beijing shows a great interest in the Tibetan Tradition, it is not enamoured with the Dalai Lama as yet."
Last week, Chen Quanguo, Tibet's Party Secretary told the Standing Committee of the regional Party: "One should not believe in the 14th Dalai group’s fantasies (illusions), or follow the Dalai group; one should beware infiltration and sabotage activities in which are involved separatist party cadres."
While warning the cadres not be trapped in the 'Dalai Lama's fantasies', the Party is promoting Buddhist on a large scale in Eastern Tibet (Kham).
An article on China Tibet Online praises "Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy in Sichuan" pointing out that Jigme Phuntsok Rinpoche, founder of Larung Gar was a teacher of His Holiness [sic] the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (of course, they won't say that the same Khenpo Phuntsok once visited Dharamsala to share teachings with the present Dalai Lama).
I am reproducing the article; it is worth reading:

Jigme Phuntsok Rinpoche, the incarnation of the great terton Terchen Lerab Lingpa, and also a teacher of His Holiness the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, established the Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy in Larung Valley near Serthar, Sichuan Province, southwest China, in 1980, with the aim to revitalize Dharma and benefit all sentient beings.
The reason behind the selection of Serthar as the building place is primarily based upon the fact that it is a historically sacred place in Vajrayana. Monks go to achieve 'rainbow body' (a high level of spiritual achievement), and comprehend the 'four karmas' at the academy. Thirteen disciples attained 'rainbow body' at the place where His Holiness the First Dudjom Rinpoche had originally stayed.
According to the First Dodrupchen Rinpoche, two hundred years ago a great siddha wrote in his Future Prophecy that the Larung Valley, protected by the Goddess of Mutian and surrounded by the sacred Mt. Danjian and Mt. Ala, is a blessed site.
The aim of the academy can be summarized by four distinct pursuits: "to unite Buddhists in harmony; to uphold pure precepts; to study, reflect upon, and practice the sacred Dharma; and to propagate the Dharma and benefit all beings".
In May of 1987, the Tenth Panchen Lama approved the founding of the academy by presenting them with a plaque on which he wrote, in Tibetan: "Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy", he also respectfully addressed His Holiness Jigme Phuntsok as "Sage Choeje".
At the same time, Mr. Puchu Zhao, the Chairman of the Buddhist Association of China, wrote the name of the academy in Chinese. Therefore, an era of revitalization of Tibetan Buddhism had begun.
According to the introduction of its website, the curriculum at Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy includes three parts: Sutrayana, Secret Mantrayana, and common culture. The main courses in Sutrayana involve five major categories of treatise: Vinaya, Hetuvidya, Abhidharmakosa-Sastra, Madhyamika, and Prajnaparamita. Secret Mantrayana consists of esoteric shastra, various preliminaries, generation phase, completion phase, the Great Perfection, and pith instruction. Common culture pertains to the science of language, the science of medicine, Tibetan language, etc.
In 1999, the Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy was identified by The New York Times as one of the largest and most influential centers for study of Tibetan Buddhism in the world.
During more than 30 years, the academy has cultivated hundreds of eminent Buddhist scholars and practitioners, who in turn have founded numerous Dharma centers around the world. They have also made tremendous contributions to Tibetan Buddhism by teaching the sacred Dharma, revitalizing the traditional Tibetan culture, and improving ethnic unity.
Currently, there are over ten thousand resident monastics, both Tibetan and Han, in the academy. In addition, thousands of members around the world are engaged in Dharma study via online courses taught by the institute's senior Khenpo, Sodargye Rinpoche.

While denying the existence of the Dalai Lama as one of the foremost proponent of Buddhism, Beijing has clearly become 'expert' in the Buddha Dharma.
By the way, did you know that Confucius ruled as a 'divine king' in Tibet?
It is what the China Daily says: "Thanks to cultural exchanges between ethnic Hans and Tibetans, Confucius became a master in Tibetan culture over time."
The Communist newspapers explains: "In the beginning, Confucius’ name could only be found in Tibetan literature that was translated from Chinese. Gradually, Confucius became known as a figure with 'divine power' in Tibet and took on the identity 'Kongtse Trulgyi Gyalpo', founder of literature on calendrical calculation and rituals to ward off evil spirits in the Bon religion, Tibet’s traditional religion."
Confucius was a Bon master.
The article seriously adds: "In order to promote the Bon religion, Confucius traveled to many places far away from home, and learned from masters until he finally built a monastery of the Bon religion. However, he wasn’t able to protect the monastery on his own, so he invited Shenrab Miwoche to help out and later regarded Miwoche as his master. Around the time Tibetan Buddhism replaced the Bon religion and took on a predominant role in Tibet, Confucius was considered as one of the four leading masters of the Bon with divine power."
Great, by why did Mao say that 'Religion is Poison'?
Here are some pictures of Larung Gar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buddha is money in the Middle Kingdom

Some of the Buddhas in China (Illustration, SCMP)

Buddha is getting bigger and bigger.
Why?
Because Buddha is money.
The South China Morning Post reported yesterday: "Giant statues of sage spring up all over mainland as developers and officials bid to lure tourists".
Tourism has become one of the most lucrative businesses in the Middle Kingdom.
The Hong Kong daily suggests: "Local officials on the mainland are drawing inspiration from Buddha, but perhaps not in a way he might have intended," adding "Tourism bureaus and developers are racing to build ever-higher statues of Buddha, in an attempt to copy the success of the Lingshan Grand Buddha in Wuxi, Jiangsu province."
The Lingshan Buddha is 88-metre-high statue/attraction; it got some 3.8 million visitors last year, generating more than 200 million US dollars for an investment of 725 tonnes of bronze. That's good business.
Hong Kong seems frustrated: five others Buddhas are taller than its Tian Tan Buddha (34 metres only). The tallest is of course the 208-metre-high Spring Temple Buddha in Lushan county in Henan province, while the Lingshan Grand Buddha, a 99-metre bodhisattva Ksitigarbha in Anhui province and a 48-metre statue of Amitabha Buddha at Lu Mountain in Jiangxi province, are also taller than the Hong Kong one.
Buddha is indeed money: the Lingshan park charges 210 yuan (US $ 3.5) per ticket; it gets hugely crowded during holiday times.
Kent Cai, a visitor from Ningbo in Jiangsu told The South China Morning Post (SCMP): "I felt dazed when I saw so many incense packages on sale - 50 yuan to pray for health, 128 yuan to pray for a child, 398 yuan to pray for vast happiness and 598 yuan for huge fortune."
What would Buddha say about this?
He would probably keep silent or meditate on human cupidity.
Xue Yu, a staff of the department of cultural and religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong told the SCMP that local governments view giant Buddhas as an ambitious way to boost tourism: "The projects use the popularity of Buddhism and are a politically safe way to help build social harmony."

Whether it is 'politically' safe  is debatable, but it explains the growing popularity of Tibet amongst the Chinese masses (see yesterday's post).
Tibet too is money.
Chinese people not only love statues of Buddha, but they are also fond of  burning incense.
China News reported that on the eve of the Chinese New Year, tens of thousands of people lined up outside Buddhist temples overnight to have the opportunity to burn the first incense of the Year; the down-to-earth temples managers did not miss the opportunity to raise their prices.
One temple in Zhejiang Province is said to have priced the first incense at US $ 20,000. The China News article admits that people have ‘misconceptions’ and are misled by the belief that the first incense will make their New Year wishes come true. 
But there is another side to the newly-found popularity of the Buddha, remember my earlier post on the Serthar Institute.
Buddha can be very subversive too.

The Dalai Lama and Ayodhya

Though this article of Yoginder Sikand in Rediff.com is thought-provoking, I will not venture to comment on the historical truth behind the hypothesis. 
However, there is no doubt, and it was confirmed by the ISI, that a vihara existed below the masjid.
It remains me of an article that I wrote in 2004, and which, for some reasons that I can't remember, was never published. 
I suggested that the Dalai Lama could be a mediator in the Ayodhya tangle. Here is my article.

The Dalai Lama and Ayodhya
Some fourteen centuries ago, the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang crisscrossed North India in search of the places where his master, the Buddha had lived and preached the Dharma a thousand years earlier. One day he reached a place called O-yu-tu. In his Buddhist Records of the Western World, he thus described the city: “We come to the country of O-yu-to (Ayodhya)… It abounds in cereals, and produces a large quantity of flowers and fruits. The climate is temperate and agreeable, the manners of the people virtuous and amiable; they love the duties of religion and diligently devote themselves to learning.”
Interestingly, some 3000 Buddhist monks lived there in a hundred big and small viharas, belonging to the two branches of Buddhism: Hinayana and Mahayana. While else where, serious disputes (and sometimes worse) erupted regularly between the proponents of each school, here in Ayodhya the monks lived in harmony, sharing the common facilities of the viharas.
This tradition of tolerance in a city where Buddhist masters such as Asanga and Vasubandhu preached and practiced, prompted the Dalai Lama to send an appeal to the two parties involved in the bitter Ramjanmabhoomi-Masjid dispute on the Christmas Day.
The Dalai Lama explained: “As one who has profound admiration for India’s centuries old tradition of tolerance and respect for all beliefs and as one who has lived in this country for over 40 years, this has caused me deep personal anguish.”
He said that he considered the row as “a temporary aberration” and he believed that “the issue can be resolved through mutual trust, mutual faith and mutual respect. Its politicization only adds to its complexity and makes it more difficult to find an enduring, amicable and widely acceptable solution”. He concluded by fervently appealing “to all for a mature and open-minded approach to this issue so that the spirit of tolerance and brotherhood is restored”.
Deputy Prime L.K. Advani immediately responded to the Tibetan leaders’ appeal. He asserted: "The government would not only encourage but also actively participate in any serious and reasonable effort to settle the issue in an amicable manner." While giving the assurance that his Party would use its power to convince “those who had launched the movement for Ram Temple at Ayodhya to participate in any amicable settlement on Ayodhya”, he added that the government was ready to act as the facilitator if needed.
Even more heartening is the fact that several leaders of both communities reacted favorably to the appeal. The RSS and other Hindu organizations as also the Diwan-e-Sharrief of Ajmer, the Shahi Iman of Delhi and several other Muslim leaders welcomed it. This brings some hope for the New Year.
It reminds me of an interview I had once with the Tibetan Prime Minister: he explained that according to his tradition, a political system in which a leader is elected by 60% of the people but rules against 40%, can not be considered as ‘democratic’. In this sense, the solution proposed to have an adjudication by a Court of Law or a Parliament legislation by a majority vote appears unable to provide a long-term solution to such a dispute. If a consensus is found, the legal imprimatur of the Supreme Court on a negotiated settlement could always come later.
In International politics, the term ‘win-win’ has recently become very fashionable. Would it not be in the fitness of things that a ‘win-win’ solution is arrived at in the ancient city of Ayodhya?
There is another interesting aspect to the Dalai Lama’s appeal: for years a rumor has been circulating that a Buddhist vihara was buried beneath the Hindu temple built in the 11th-12th century.
When the excavations were conducted by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) under the supervision of the High Court in Lucknow between March and August 2003, some remnants of older structures were found. In the Summary of its findings, the ASI described the different layers exposed. Though the media attention concentrated on ‘the massive and monumental structure found below the disputed structure’, earlier constructions and artifacts belonging to the Kushan and Gupta periods were discovered in the deeper layers. It may be difficult to ascribe with certainty these remains to a temple or a vihara for the simple reason that the period was very eclectic in its beliefs. Different philosophies, systems of yoga and practices co-habitated in places like Ayodhya; architecture and building technology were not very different whether they belonged to one faith or another. Even regal patronage was often offered to both temples and viharas.
It is to the credit of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate who knows about the ancient Buddhist past of Ayodhya that he did not make any claim of a Buddhist temple existing on the disputed site. The Tibetan leader, a refugee since over four decades in what he considers “Aryabhumi”, has shown the inhabitants of India that tolerance, the most sacred principle of ancient India, had been kept alive in the Land of Snows.
He restated that recently: "I am optimistic about a solution to the Ayodhya problem because India is the only country with centuries-old tradition of religious tolerance. Here, all religions exist together, something impossible in other countries."
For the Tibetan leader, this appeal is perhaps a means to repay the debt of his people to the Land of the Buddha.
Maybe one day after a solution to the vexed issue is found, when both communities begin smiling again, a small token of gratitude could be offered to the Dalai Lama. Not to him personally of course, but to his nation which was able to preserve the old Indian tradition of tolerance. This token could be a small shrine in a corner of the site, in sight of a majestic Ram temple with a mosque not too far. It would be dedicated to the great sons of Ayodhya, the Buddhist masters Ashvaghosa, Asanga and Vasubandhu who once lived and preached the Middle Path in this holy city. This would be fair.
 
How about a Buddhist vihar in Ayodhya?

Rediff.com
July 08, 2011
Yogi Sikand
A vihar dedicated to the Buddha, apostle of universal love being built on the disputed site in Ayodhya, might actually be a mutually acceptable and eminently sensible settlement for many Hindus and Muslims themselves, says Yogi Sikand on reading Ambedkarite scholar Balwant Singh Charvak's book
The conflict over the now-destroyed structure in Ayodhya, whose chief antagonists have consistently sought to pit Hindus and Muslims against each other, has a hidden dimension representing a third party which, if recognised, could well provide a meaningful solution to the still-unresolved dispute.
So writes Balwant Singh Charvak, a noted Ambedkarite scholar from Uttar Pradesh [ Images ], in a book which I recently came across appropriately titled Ayodhya Kiski?Na Ram Ki, Na Babar Ki ('Whose Ayodhya? Neither Ram's Nor Babar's'). Echoing several other Dalit ideologues who have made similar claims, Charvak argues that the disputed spot in Ayodhya belongs to neither Hindus nor Muslims but, rather, to an ignored third party -- Shudras and Buddhists. This spot, he claims, is where a grand Buddhist temple, dedicated to a Shudra rishi, Lomash (later identified, so he says, as a Boddhistattva or Gautama Buddha in one of his previous lives) once stood.
In his 230-odd page Hindi book, which is based on meticulous research, Charvak argues that there is no evidence of any Ram temple having stood on the site occupied by the erstwhile Babri Masjid [ Images ]. Indeed, he argues, the cult of Ram centred in Ayodhya is of relatively recent origin, and is certainly a post-Buddhist development. He contends that the disputed spot in Ayodhya was actually a hallowed centre of worship of 'low' caste untouchables and Shudras even before Ram's birth, for it was there that a Shudra saint named Lomash was born and where had set up his hermitage. His son Shambhukh, also a saint, was, so he contends, also born in the same place. The father and son were both renowned for their piety, and were immensely popular saints among the Shudras, who were shunned and scorned by the 'upper caste' Hindus.
According to the Ramayana [ Images ], Charvak writes, Shambhukh was killed by Ram for having violated the Brahminical code of caste conduct by engaging in tapasya or stern authorities in the hope of entering heaven, something that was forbidden to 'low' caste Shudras by the Brahmins and their religion. This indicates, Charvak adds, that Ram was an ardent defender of the inequitous caste system, which was premised on the degradation of the Shudras.
Because of its association with the Shudra hero-saints Lomash and Shambhukh, Charvak writes, the presently disputed spot was widely revered among the Shudras for centuries. Later, Gautam Buddha is said to have visited Ayodhya, and Charvak argues that it was near Lomash Rishi's chaitya or shrine, supposedly constructed on the disputed spot, that he announced, so Charvak claims (based on a reference to the widely-known Buddhist text The Questions of King Milinda) that he had been Lomash Rishi in one of his previous births.
In other words, Charvak argues, Lomash Rishi was actually a Boddhisattva.
The bigoted Brahmins of the area, fearful that the Buddha's charisma and teaching would attract people to him and that this would threaten their control and privileges, issued orders that no one was to give food or water to the Buddha and his bhikkhu followers accompanying him. Defying their diktat, a woman called Anitya, a Brahmin's servant, provided the Buddha with water, which so angered her Brahmin master that he beat her to death. This incident, so Charvak argues, took place at the presently-disputed spot, which added to its religious importance for the Shudras. Soon, the spot also became a hallowed one for Buddhists (many of whom were of Shudra origin) particularly because, or so Charvak says, the Buddha had visited the place.
Prior to the Buddha's visit to Ayodhya, or the Buddhist Saketa, the disputed spot, so hallowed to the Shudras, hosted a chaitya or shrine to Lomash, but after the spread of Buddhism, Charvak argues, a massive Buddhist temple or vihar was constructed on it in honour of 'Lomash Boddhisattva' and other Shudra saints. Charvak quotes well-known historians who have testified to the importance of Ayodhya/Saket as a great centre of Buddhism and of it having once hosted a vast number of Buddhist temples. However, Charvak argues, with the decline of the Mauryas, Buddhism, too, experienced a decline, and when, in the first century BC, the Brahmin Pushyamitra Sangha murdered the last Mauryan king and came to power over much of northern India [ Images ], he let loose a virtual genocide of Buddhists, destroying many of their temples, including possibly the Buddhist vihar that Charvak claims was built on Lomash Rishi's hermitage, the site of what Muslims claim to be the Babri Masjid.
When, in the early sixteenth century, Babar or his general Mir Baqi arrived in Ayodhya the ruins of this Buddhist temple, built on a spot that Charvak argues was for centuries holy for the Shudras and Buddhists, were lying scattered about, having, so Charvak says, long since been destroyed by Brahminical revivalists who were as opposed to the Buddhists as they were to the Shudras. Babar or Mir Baqi simply put together the scattered ruins to build what is now known as the Babri Masjid, Charvak writes.
In other words, he contends, the structure that originally stood on the disputed spot was not a Ram temple but, rather, a Buddhist vihar, and that it was destroyed not by Babar or any other Muslim but, rather, by anti-Buddhist Brahminical revivalists. Charvak backs his claim by asserting that relics unearthed during excavations around the disputed site show clear evidence of his claims and do not suggest any proof whatsoever of a Ram temple having stood on the spot.
Based on references in an ancient Pali Buddhist text, the Dashrath Jataka, he also raises the possibility that Ram was born not in the present-day Ayodhya, on the banks of the Saryu river, but, rather in another place once also referred to as Ayodhya, located on the banks of the Ganga in Kashi, where, according to the Dashrath Jataka, Ram's father orginally ruled. If this is true, Charvak argues, the claim that the presently-disputed spot marks the place of Ram's birth is void.
Charvak is not the only person to have argued on these lines -- numerous noted Buddhist and Ambedkarite scholars and activists have made somewhat the same claim. That Ayodhya was once a thriving centre of Buddhism is well-known, as is the fact of Brahminical revivalists destroying vast numbers of Buddhist temples (as did many intolerant Muslim iconoclasts) or taking them over and Hinduising them across India.
Whatever the case may be, a vihar dedicated to the Buddha, the apostle of universal love, instead of a Brahminical Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque, being built on the disputed site, might actually be a mutually acceptable and eminently sensible settlement for many Hindus and Muslims themselves, who are fed up of the hate-driven politics of mandir and masjid being played in their name.

Greed in Kaliyug

We are really living during Kaliyug (the Dark Age). 
Greed seems to prevail everywhere. 
Why did President Karzai 'offer' mining concessions in this particular area?
More than 2500 years ago, Buddha said: "Inflamed by greed, incensed by hate, confused by delusion, overcome by them, obsessed by mind, a man chooses for his own affliction, for others' affliction, for the affliction of both and experiences pain and grief". 
Ironically this place which, 1400 years ago, was visited by the Chinese pilgrim Hieun Tsang has now been 'bought' by a Chinese mining company.
Even in this Bamyan Valley, which has been so greatly influenced by the Great Monk, men have become greedy.
Ten years ago, I wrote a piece on Bamyan entitled From Mao to Bin Laden for Rediff.com. Today, I could write, From Bin Laden to the Chinese miners.
More than 40 years back, I remember visiting Bamyan. I have never seen such grandiose, simple and peaceful place.
Now the ants are digging. Perhaps they are digging their Karmic tomb.

Bamiyan II? Buddhist site in Afghanistan faces threat from China miners
Julius Cavendish,
NYT News Service
Apr 16, 2011,
Few thought they would do it until they did, firing fusillade after fusillade into two giant statues of the Buddha that had weathered 1,500 turbulent years of conquest and chaos, but could not withstand the Taliban's tanks. As shells and anti-aircraft rounds thudded into the sandstone giants, Afghans who eked out their lives in the shadow of the statues were aghast.
Now, almost 10 years to the month after Taliban fundamentalists blew the Bamiyan Buddhas apart, Afghanistan's archaeological treasures face a new threat: capitalism. Just south of Kabul, French and Afghan archaeologists have unearthed a 5th-century Buddhist monastery at a 4,000 hectare site called Mes Aynak — and are racing against time to excavate more ruins before Chinese miners obliterate them in their quest for natural resources.
In 2007, China Metallurgical Group, a Beijing-based mining group, signed a $3bn deal with the Afghan government —the biggest foreign investment in the country to date — to exploit vast copper deposits less than 1,000m from the then yet-to-be-discovered monastery. In its day, the building would have stood 15m (50ft) high, and measured 80m by 40m .Now it sits half-concealed by the mound it rises from beside the main road to Kabul; a warren of newly excavated halls and passages with giant feet, hands and faces emerging from earth.
Following a recent visit to Mes Aynak (it means "little copper well"), archaeologist Joanie Meharry described the treasures emerging from the dig. "Among the ruins were found a stupa more than 9m tall, frescoes with details in black and red paint, plaster statues adorned with jewelled ornaments, some laced in a fine layer of gold, and shards of pottery," she wrote.
The team of 16 French and Afghan archaeologists conducting the dig at Mes Aynak has 38 months before the Chinese miners move in, although the hope is that Afghanistan's mining and culture ministries will step in to protect some of the settlement's remains.
NYT news service