Reconfiguring Asia Through the Lens of Buddhism: India and Okakura Tenshin’s The Ideals of the East

Abstract

The Japanese scholar and art critic Okakura Tenshin traveled to colonial India from January to September 1902 and made three visits to the Buddhist holy site of Bodh Gaya. There, he attempted to purchase a piece of land from the landowner, the Mahant, to build a vihāra (resthouse) for Japanese Buddhist devotees. His purchase request was rejected by the British colonial authority for his foreigner status, despite no legal prohibition against land sales to foreigners under Bodh Gaya’s land management laws at the time. The year after his journey to India, Okakura Tenshin published The Ideals of the East, wherein the renowned declaration that “Asia is one” subsequently evolved to be the intellectual cornerstone of twentieth-century Asianism (or Pan-Asianism). How did Okakura’s Indian journey and his experience of the failed attempt to purchase land in Bodh Gaya catalyze his conception of “Asia is One”? This essay first traces the Buddhist revival movements in late nineteenth-century India and Japan, elucidating how Buddhism helped forge a sense of transnational solidarity between the two nations, which Okakura also embraced. It then examines Okakura’s trip to India and his plan to purchase land at Bodh Gaya, uncovering the underlying geopolitical struggle between the British Empire and the New Asian Power Japan. In this context, the analysis will show that Okakura’s frustrating experience of failed land purchase underscored for him the necessity for the solidarity between Japan and India and the need for a unitary idea of Asia to articulate that solidarity. Finally, a comparative textual analysis between The Ideals of the East (1903) and Okakura’s “History of Japanese Art” lectures given at the Tokyo Fine Arts School before his trip to India explicates how Buddhism, which was being revived by a collective of various groups in and outside its place of origin India, served as a cohesive discursive agent in Okakura’s construction of the narrative of an Asian unity. This Buddhist framework helped Okakura to reconstruct the interlinked cultural histories of India, China, and Japan into a unified notion of Asia within which he crystallized a unique and favored cultural identity for Japan.

1. Introduction

In 1903, one year after Okakura Tenshin concluded his journey to India (1901–1902), his cultural treatise The Ideals of the East was published in London. The iconic opening line, “Asia is one”, became the foundational statement of “Asianism” (or “Pan-Asianism”). On one hand, Asianism has been interpreted as a collective resistance of modern Asian nations against Western imperialism; on the other hand, it has often been closely associated with Japan’s colonial expansion (Saller and Szpilman 2011; Kojita 1997; Takahiko 1998). Due to the productive ambiguity and controversial nature of “Asianism”, interpretations of The Ideals of the East and even Okakura’s thought have continually evolved.

After World War II, scholarly debates on Okakura Tenshin’s Asianism were predominantly confined to Japanese academia. A pivotal figure in these discussions was the Japanese intellectual Takeuchi Yoshimi, who extracted from Okakura’s thought a centripetal force advocating pan-Asian unity against Western hegemony through aesthetic-cultural bonds (Takeuchi 1966). This stood in radical opposition to wartime “Great-Asianism” (大アジア主義), which served as an ideological tool for Japan’s imperialist expansion. Takeuchi Yoshimi’s concern with Asianism epitomized the intellectual climate in Japan during the Anpo Protests: the pervasive presence of the United States prompted Japanese intellectuals to rediscover Asia’s identity. This quest resonated deeply with the vision of Asian identity articulated by Okakura Tenshin in his early 20th-century work The Ideals of the East. The concept of “Asian identity” that Takeuchi unearthed from Okakura’s thought was subsequently inherited by scholars such as Naoaki (1994), who characterized Asianism as a doctrine advocating unity under Japan’s leadership to resist Western influence. In his work Okakura, The Rising Sun of Japanese Renaissance, Kowshik (1988) continues to emphasize that Okakura presented the “true value” and identity of Asia to the Western world.

The growing prominence of postcolonial theory has prompted a critical re-evaluation of Okakura Tenshin’s concept of “Asia is one”. Increasingly, researchers focus on the complicit relationship between Asianism and Japan’s colonial discourse. For instance, while Tankha (2009) still considers the “aesthetic past” and “national identity” pivotal to understanding Okakura’s Asianism, he argues that this identity served as part of Japan’s expansionist and aggressive ideology, and its purpose was to establish a colonial order positioning Japan as Asia’s leader. Eri (2007), in her work Pan-Asianism and Japan’s War, distinguishes three types of Asianism: Teaist, Sinic, and Meishuron.1 She argues that Meishuron Asianism became dominant in Japan after 1931, while the other two variants persistently remained integral to the Japan consensus (Eri 2007, pp. 2, 226). Indeed, all three forms of Asianism noted by Hotta are discernible in The Ideals of the East. Regardless of how Asianism is interpreted, Okakura’s The Ideals of the East is frequently regarded as a foundational source of Asianism.

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, Okakura’s journey to India is closely related to his discourse on “Asia as One”. The obvious connection between Okakura and India has already been noted by some scholars. For example, Shigemi and Singleton (2012) neither portray Okakura as an expounder of aesthetic pan-Asianism nor a pernicious ultra-nationalistic thinker. Instead, they analyze his intellectual connections with three historians of Indian art—Ernest Binfield Havell, Ananda Coomaraswamy, and Vincent Smith—from an art-historical perspective. Their research identifies Okakura as the pioneer of Eastern art history. In recent years, Togawa Masahiko has been the foremost scholar examining Okakura Tenshin’s engagement with India. His work Okakura Tenshin to Indo (Okakura Tenshin and India) (Togawa 2023, p. 204) investigates Okakura’s interactions with figures like Swami Vivekananda in India. The work analyzes the diversity within Asianism from both Indian and Japanese perspectives—the former providing intellectual resources for India’s independence movement, while the latter gradually evolved into an accomplice to Japan’s war of aggression. The existing literature concerning Okakura Tenshin and India, however, has yet to explore how his journey to India shaped his conception of “Asia as One” in The Ideals of the East. Therefore, this article will examine Okakura’s land acquisition activities in India, particularly at the Buddhist holy site of Bodh Gaya, and analyze the underlying conflict of interest between Britain and Japan. Based on this analysis, it will then clarify the formative context of early Japanese Asianism, as represented by Okakura, by examining both the internal exchanges within Asia and the external pressures from the West. Clarifying this context is essential to understanding how The Ideals of the East constructed a new cultural order for Asian nations in the early 20th century centered on Japan, how India was integrated into this order, and how, within this framework, Indian Buddhism supplanted Chinese Confucianism as the new cohesive force within it.

2. Buddhist Diplomacy: Buddhism in Asia’s Modernization

Okakura Tenshin’s biographical records (Okakura Tenshin Zenshū Henshūbu 1981, p. 412) reveal that, in 1898, three years before his India journey, he experienced a major professional crisis: resigning as director of the Tokyo School of Fine Arts (東京美術学校)2 and head of the Art Department at the Imperial Museum due to intense professional conflicts and personal scandals (Compiled Meiji Newspaper Chronicle Editorial Committee 1940, p. 211). Due to Okakura Tenshin’s career setbacks and his non-official status, his journey to India can be easily mistaken for a purely personal, culturally motivated trip. Consequently, its political significance for Meiji Japan in the sphere of international exchange is often overlooked. If we shift focus from Okakura himself to the Meiji era, his Indian trip emerges as existing squarely within the trajectory of modern Japan-India Buddhist exchange. This form of engagement can be understood as an early example of Track II diplomacy. To comprehend such religion-based exchange practices, we must first separately examine the challenges and opportunities Buddhism faced in modern Japan and India.

Historically, the danka system, refined during Japan’s Edo period, assigned Buddhist temples functions such as population supervision, household registration management, and education, which means this system became deeply embedded in the Tokugawa shogunate’s local governance structure. Narrowly following the Meiji Restoration, a nationwide “anti-Buddhist movement” (Haibutsu Kishaku) erupted due to demands for modernization and the impact of Western ideas. In 1868, the Meiji government issued the Kami and Buddhas Separation Order (Shinbutsu Hanzenrei), establishing Shinto as the state religion and marginalizing Buddhism. Subsequently, in 1871, the government enacted the Family Register Act (Kosekihō), forcibly abolishing the danka system and ending the populace’s personal dependence on temples. As a consequence, deprived of economic resources and political backing, Japanese Buddhism developed new strategies. One path involved emulating European Indology, as seen in the Buddhist academic research pursued by scholars like Takakusu Junjirō and Anesaki Masaharu. The other path utilized Buddhism to serve state power—countering Christian cultural incursion, participating in nation-building, and expanding diplomatic channels.

Japan’s Buddhist diplomacy began in the early Meiji period. In 1873, Ogurusu Kōchō, a monk of the Higashi Hongan-ji branch of Jōdo Shinshū, was tasked by his order to travel to Beijing and expand its reach (Kojima and Kiba 1992, pp. 24–25). To articulate his mission, Ogurusu authored A Defense of Buddhism in Beijing (Pekin Gohōron) during his stay there. The text introduced various Japanese Buddhist sects and the doctrines of Jōdo Shinshū, while proposing a Pan-Asian Buddhist alliance among Japan, China, and India to resist the advancement of Christianity and Islam in Asia (Chen 2016, p. 217). Ogurusu’s missionary work in Beijing reveals that early Japanese Buddhist diplomacy contained precursors to Asianism. Crucially, Ogurusu Kōchō’s activities in China went beyond mere cultural exchange, as his Jōdo Shinshū denomination actively collaborated with the Meiji government’s official diplomacy. For example, when the Iwakura Mission (岩倉使節団, 1871–1873) conducted its state-sponsored survey of Western nations, Shimaji Mokurai, the monk from the Nishi Hongan-ji of Jōdo Shinshū, accompanied the delegation. Although Shimaji was not officially commissioned by the government, his participation nonetheless reveals the close ties between the Jōdo Shinshū sect and the Meiji government. In January 1872, Shimaji visited Europe on an official visit. On his return journey, he made a special pilgrimage to Buddhist heritage in India, documenting this experience in his travelogue Diary of a Journey West (Kōsei Nissaku) (Shimaji 1978). Jōdo Shinshū’s gravitation toward state authority was evident not only in its proactive foreign exchange but also in its endorsement of the emperor system (Tennōsei). In 1889—the year the Meiji Constitution was promulgated—figures closely tied to Jōdo Shinshū, including Ōuchi Seiran, Inoue Enryō and Shimaji Mokurai formed the “Sonnō Hōbutsu Daitōdan” (Association for Reverence of the Emperor and Worship of Buddha). Under the absolute affirmation of the emperor’s sacred authority, they advocated “Buddhism for National Salvation”. This relationship reflected Japanese Buddhism’s fundamental condition in the Meiji era: on the one hand, Buddhism sought survival amid marginalization; on the other hand, its alignment with state power was far from passive, given its historical entanglement with political authority. Meiji Buddhism’s self-preservation was, in essence, an attempt to revert to this entrenched pattern.

In India, the situation of Buddhism differed from that in Japan. Historically, it never became deeply involved in political activities of the ruling elite like Japanese Buddhism did. It has long been the consensus among researchers that Indian Buddhism flourished during the Mauryan Empire (320–185 BCE), only to all but “end” from the Indian subcontinent between the 12th and 14th centuries (Gethin 1998; Lopez 2008; Turner 2014; Mckeown 2019). However, this Eurocentric historical narrative has been challenged in recent years. Douglas Ober indicates that Buddhism never disappeared from the Indian subcontinent; rather, it maintained widespread influence among the Dalits for a long period. Furthermore, the rediscovery and revival of Buddhism in India predated the 19th century and was spearheaded by Indians and other Asians, rather than by Western colonizers (Ober 2023, p. 22). Ober’s research challenges the validity of a 19th-century Buddhist “revival” in the Indian subcontinent. To avoid this Eurocentric narrative trap, this essay prefers to describe the flourishing of Buddhism during this period as a Buddhist “resurgence”. This term implies that the tradition, while unarchived, was never actually interrupted. While the protagonists and timelines of the Indian Buddhist revival differ starkly between these two narratives, historical figures and events rarely adhere to such clear-cut distinctions. By temporarily setting aside this controversy, it becomes evident that many key figures behind the 19th-century Indian Buddhist resurgence operated between the West and the East, thereby transforming the Buddhist resurgence into a global phenomenon of a much larger scale.

On the one hand, the achievements of 19th-century European Indology led to the widespread recognition of Buddhism in the West. For instance, during the East India Company period, William Jones established the Royal Asiatic Society in Calcutta. Members of this society collected and cataloged a significant number of Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts (Cowell and Eggeling 1876). Around the same period, British officer Captain John Smith accidentally discovered the Buddhist monument Ajanta Caves in 1819 (Spink 1972, pp. 49–58). Indologists utilized Buddhist manuscripts and cave inscriptions to conduct extensive research on Indian Buddhism, bringing this long-dormant religious civilization back to historical prominence. Their scholarly achievements attracted attention across Europe, including a pivotal English poet and journalist, Sir Edwin Arnold. In 1879, his narrative poem The Light of Asia in London, introducing the life of the Buddha to European audiences. This work served as a crucial cultural bridge, and he also actively dedicated himself to connecting the international Buddhist support for the revival of Buddhism in Bodh Gaya. In 1885, Sir Edwin Arnold visited the declining Buddhist sacred site Bodh Gaya. He subsequently traveled to Sri Lanka and Japan to seek international Buddhist support for restoring this place. On the other hand, the Buddhist movement in 19th-century Sri Lanka attracted international religious figures who participated in the movement, mobilizing and integrating forces to aid the resurgence of Buddhism. Since Buddhism had maintained continuous influence in Sri Lanka, religious disputes persisted between local Buddhists and Christians after the British East India Company gained control of the island. To prevent religious conflicts, the British government in Ceylon long maintained a neutral religious policy (De Silva 1981, pp. 250 & 315). In the second half of the 19th century, Sri Lanka launched a nationwide Buddhist revival movement to resist both Christianity and British colonial rule (De Silva 1981, pp. 325 & 39–40). This movement soon attracted attention from Western religious figures, including Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky, founders of the Theosophical Society. They arrived in Sri Lanka in 1880 and made substantial contributions to the Buddhist resurgence in Indian Subcontinent. Although it would be arbitrary to designate Western religious figures as the principal actors in the Buddhist resurgence of the Indian subcontinent, it is undeniable that their endeavors exerted a constructive influence on the movement.

The activities of figures such as Olcott and Sir Edwin Arnold in South Asia inspired Anagarika Dharmapala from Sri Lanka, a key figure in the Buddhist resurgence of the Indian subcontinent. In 1891, during his first visit to Bodh Gaya, Dharmapala was astonished to find this former sacred site of Buddhism under the control of Hinduism (Obeyesekere 1976, pp. 221–52). To return Bodh Gaya to Buddhist hands, Dharmapala actively utilized the international influence of the Theosophical Society and Sir Edwin Arnold. He founded the Maha-bodhi Society and used this platform to seek support from global Buddhist networks. Specifically, Olcott facilitated Dharmapala’s connections with Japanese Buddhist circles: In 1889, Dharmapala visited Japan as Olcott’s assistant. Olcott’s mission aimed to unite Japan representing Mahayana Buddhism (Northern Buddhism) and Sri Lanka representing Theravada Buddhism (Southern Buddhism) (Kemper 2015, pp. 116–17). Although Dharmapala was not the focus of news reports, this Japan visit initiated his years-long friendship with Japanese Buddhist communities. In 1893, during his return journey to Ceylon from the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago, Dharmapala revisited Japan alone and extensively traveled across the country by train to raise money for the revival of Bodh Gaya (Kemper 2015, p. 118). During his stay in Tokyo, Dharmapala received a wooden image of the Buddha as a gift from Tentoku-ji Temple. This wooden Buddha image holds significance for Okakura’s later journey to India, which will be discussed in the third part of this paper.

It is also worth noting that for Japanese Buddhism, the Parliament of the World’s Religions presented an opportunity to gain recognition from the Western world. This recognition was crucial for Buddhism to regain its former high status in Japanese society. At this grand event, Japanese Buddhist delegates explained the merits of Mahayana Buddhism to the Western audience. It was necessary because Western scholars of that period had little knowledge about Mahayana Buddhism and believed only Theravada Buddhism represented the ultimate truth of Buddhism. Furthermore, making Mahayana Buddhism known to the West also served to fulfill vital diplomatic mission: the revision of unequal treaties. This mission traced back to the unequal treaties Japan had been forced to sign with Western powers forty years earlier. Although the Japanese government repeatedly called for treaty revisions, the Western nations refused to negotiate citing the reason that Japan was a non-Christian therefore uncivilized nation (Akai 2024). Therefore, to persuade the Western world to acknowledge the merits of Mahayana Buddhism was to gain their recognition of Japan’s equal civilizational standing alongside Christian nations.

As the preceding discussion shows, the resurgence of Buddhism in Japan and India during the 19th century followed distinct trajectories. Within Japan, Buddhism faced the crisis of marginalization. To reclaim its central position in political power, Buddhist orders, represented by Jōdo Shinshū, actively aligned themselves with state authority. On the international stage, Buddhism served a dual purpose: it acted as a cultural adhesive to unite Asia against the West and functioned as a cultural asset to validate Japan’s claim to an equal civilized status to Christian nations. Regarding India, the constructive role played by the West in the Indian Buddhist resurgence of the 19th century was most evident in the global propagation of Buddhism and the construction of global Buddhist networks. Domestic Buddhist activists, such as Dharmapala, strategically utilized these international religious networks to assist the local Buddhist movement. By the end of the 19th century, these two trajectories started to converge. Buddhists from both India and Japan fostered significant collaboration via platforms such as the Maha-Bodhi Society, the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago, and other cultural exchanges. However, given the lack of evidence that India accepted the Japanese cultural narrative of uniting Asia through Buddhism to counter the West, this essay remains focused on the Japanese perspective when discussing the relationship between Buddhism and early Asianism. Furthermore, given the deep entanglement between Japanese Buddhism and state power, one should not overemphasize the cultural characteristics of these Buddhist-based exchanges between Japan and India when examining them from the Japanese perspective. To elaborate, Okakura Tenshin’s journey to India cannot be regarded simply as a personal spiritual quest or cultural exchange. It also had a political dimension. Consequently, the “Asianism” inspired by his journey naturally reveals a complex and multifaceted character.

3. Okakura’s Indian Trip: Japan’s Reach into South-Asia

From his university days, Okakura Tenshin accompanied Ernest Fenollosa—a professor of political science, economics, and philosophy at the University of Tokyo—on surveys of ancient temples and art across Japan. Fenollosa’s interest in Japanese Buddhist antiquities was closely linked to the concurrent rise of European Indology. Thus, Okakura’s connection with India originated during this period. After graduating from the University of Tokyo in 1880, Okakura became a civil servant at the Ministry of Education. For around two decades, he conducted domestic and overseas art surveys, as well as establishing a modern art education system. This continued until 1898, when he resigned from his positions as the director of art at the Imperial Museum and the president of the Tokyo School of Fine Arts. This eighteen-year working experience reflects Okakura’s deep involvement in the Meiji government’s modernization projects. Even after resigning, he continued overseeing the compilation of History of Art in the Japanese Empire. Therefore, although Okakura held no official position when he visited India in 1901, this journey cannot be simplistically characterized as a purely personal cultural activity.

The cultural and political nature of Okakura’s India visit is illustrated by another prominent Japanese who traveled to India and other places outside Japan around the same time: the Buddhist explorer Ōtani Kōzui. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while Western explorers flooded into Asia, the Ōtani Expedition led by Ōtani Kōzui became the first Japanese team to penetrate inland Asia. Given Ōtani’s position as the head of Jōdo Shinshū Hongwanji-ha sect of Buddhism, some scholars (Masaaki 2025, p. 187) characterize his continental expeditions not as national projects, but as purely academic surveys. However, such interpretations overlook Ōtani’s hidden connections with the imperial regime. First, he is the head of Jōdo Shinshū Hongwanji-ha, the Buddhist sect most closely aligned with state power. Second, his wife Ōtani Kazuko was the sister of Empress Teimei (consort of Emperor Taishō), which means the Ōtani family has direct kinship with the imperial household. Thus, while Ōtani’s continental expeditions were not officially commissioned by the emperor, these expeditions should not be framed as purely academic surveys. The Ōtani Expedition conducted three continental campaigns between 1902 and 1914. Though focused on Central Asia, Ōtani himself visited India multiple times. While these activities centered on Buddhist scholarship, the frequent appearance of a Japanese expedition—closely tied to the imperial regime—across Central Asia and India at the turn of the 20th century was inherently suggestive. Did this expedition from Japan, much like those from the West, also covet the Asian continent? The answer is yes. Shirasu Joshin’s research on Ōtani Kōzui and Sven Hedin reveals the significant role that continental explorers of the early 20th century played in modern diplomacy (Shirasu 2014). Moreover, Shibata Mikio’s research—which reveals Ōtani Kōzui’s ambitious plans for tropical agriculture in Taiwan, the Pan-Asian Development Plan, and a Eurasian railway—lends significant weight to this line of inquiry (Shibata 2014). Considering this broader context, Ōtani’s explorations in Asia appear as a prelude to an emerging Japan’s advance onto the Eurasian continent.

Okakura Tenshin’s journey to India nearly coincided with Ōtani Kōzui’s First Continental Expedition. In December 1901, Okakura departed from Moji Port in Fukuoka together with Hori Shitoku—a Shingon Buddhist monk—and Josephine MacLeod, a follower of Vedanta philosophy. Via Hong Kong, Singapore, Penang, and Colombo to Tuticorin, and after a brief stay in Madras, they proceeded to Calcutta, where they met Swami Vivekananda, the Hindu religious reformer, and his two disciples, Sister Nivedita and Margaret Noble (Okakura Tenshin Nenpu, Okakura Tenshin Zenshū Henshūbu 1981, p. 416). This meeting did not happen by coincidence but was planned as part of Okakura’s journey: to invite Swami Vivekanand to participate in the Eastern Religions Conference planned in Japan (Horioka 1974, p. 159). The Conference was an international assembly for the purpose of reviving Buddhism. It was organized by Oda Tokunō, a monk of Jōdo Shinshū Hongwanji-ha, and both Okakura and Hori participated in its planning. Although Vivekananda was not a Buddhist, he had publicly endorsed Buddhism at the Chicago Parliament of Religions (Vivekananda 1973, pp. 21–23). Vivekananda’s support for Buddhism might be the reason for his invitation. The co-operation of Hori and Oda reveals that although Shingon and Jōdo Shinshū were two different Buddhist sects, the revival of Buddhism was a shared imperative across Japanese Buddhist sects during the Meiji era. Although Okakura’s journey to India and Ōtani’s continental expeditions may have had different purposes, a similar underlying rationale—to expand the influence of Japan overseas—can be found in their travels to India.

On 27 January 1902, Okakura traveled to Bodh Gaya with Vivekananda. Like other pilgrims he was also astonished by the site’s visible decline. Moreover, Okakura presented gifts to the local mahant (Hindu monastery head), asking him to mediate the purchase of a piece of land at Bodh Gaya, with which Okakura planned to build a rest-house for Japanese devotees. However, upon returning to Calcutta, Okakura received a letter from the mahant, telling him that local government prohibited land sales to foreigners (Kiyomi 1944, pp. 204–5). In March, through Nivedita’s introduction, Okakura met Surendranath Tagore, of the Tagore family. Surendranath Tagore is the nephew of Rabindranath Tagore, the famous Indian poet who won the Nobel Prize in literature as the first non-European. Accompanied by Surendranath Tagore, Okakura revisited Bodh Gaya in April.3 In his memoir, Tagore (1984) also noted that when Okakura requested a land purchase to the mahant, the latter refused by citing objections from British officials to transferring land to East Asian foreigners. It seems that acquiring land at Bodh Gaya held significant importance for Okakura. According to Kiyomi’s account, Okakura aimed to build a rest-house for Japanese devotees—an act some interpret as evidence of his nationalism. Yet Surendranath Tagore’s memoir emphasizes Okakura’s vision to transform Bodh Gaya into a collective pilgrimage site for all believers, reflecting a sense of universalism. This article, however, avoids reducing Okakura’s trip to either interpretation. Instead, it analyzes the multiple dimensions of Okakura’s attempt to purchase land by asking how feasible such a transaction for foreigners under colonial regulations was.

First, we must examine the ambiguity in Okakura’s status. Citing Naresh Chandra Ghosh’s Bengali memoir, Togawa (2016) reveals that during Okakura’s first visit to Bodh Gaya, he carried a letter of introduction from Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India (1899–1902), and when in Bodh Gaya he was received by local colonial officials. Togawa attributes this exceptional treatment to the ongoing negotiations between Britain and Japan that led to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902, which strengthened bilateral ties during this period. Notably, the Viceroy of India did not issue such letters to all foreign visitors. Given that Okakura was not officially dispatched by the Meiji government, it is highly likely that Okakura procured the letter from the Viceroy in private capacity. However, this letter made Okakura’s trip to India a quasi-official one. At the same time, his actions in India cannot be completely divorced from the overseas projection and realization of the Meiji state’s political interests. This link was insinuated by Rabindranath Tagore’s letter (1902) to a Land Accountant Officer in Jharkhand, which inquired whether a special directive could be issued to the mahant to facilitate Okakura’s land purchase. In the letter, Tagore warned that a failure to issue the directive would cause Okakura to “lose face” upon returning to Japan. The letters of Rabindranath Tagore also provide evidence of the ties between Okakura’s involvement with the Meiji government (Okakura says that if it comes to returning to Japan empty-handed, he will suffer a terrible loss of face.4).

Second, we must clarify British India’s land administration policies regarding Bodh Gaya in 1902. As part of the Bengal Presidency, Bodh Gaya fell under the Zamindari (landholding) System—the land revenue framework implemented across the presidency. Established by the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, this system stipulated that zamindars (landholder) held proprietary rights. They collected rent from tenants while paying fixed revenue to the British government. Crucially, zamindars retained rights to freely sell or mortgage their estates. By circa 1900, land regulations in the Bengal Presidency contained no explicit prohibition against land sales to foreigners. For instance, the Bengal Tenancy Act. 1885 (Rampini and Finucane 1889, pp. 157, 192 & 200) included no such restrictions in its provisions governing land acquisition (Section 84: Acquisition of land for building and other purposes) or registration (Section 120: Rules for determination of proprietor’s private land). Conversely, Section 135. Certain persons may not purchase explicitly stated that “Officer holding sales of property under this Act, and all persons employed by, or subordinated to, such officers” are prohibited from purchasing land. The Mahant of Bodh Gaya was a zamindar, who held proprietary rights. Simultaneously, there is no explicit statutory prohibition against selling land to Okakura. However, local officials intervened in the transaction, indicating Bodh Gaya’s distinct circumstances under colonial administration.

Finally, Bodh Gaya’s Buddhist revival project constituted an arena of contestation between multiple political forces. Since founding the Maha Bodhi Society in 1891, Dharmapala had been engaged in conflicts with the Mahant over control of the site. As noted earlier, Dharmapala brought back a wooden image of the Buddha from Japan’s Tentoku-ji Temple in 1893. He attempted to install this wooden Buddha image within the Maha Bodhi Temple—a symbolic act asserting three claims: the revival of Buddhism at Bodh Gaya, the Maha Bodhi Society’s control of the site, and the support from Japan (Kemper 2015, p. 196). However, Dharmapala’s attempt encountered fierce opposition from the Mahant. One reason is the Hindu-Buddhist friction. Another reason is that the colonial government feared that the placement of this wooden Buddha image would encourage a large number of Japanese Buddhist pilgrims to India (Trevithick 2006, p. 142). The wooden Buddha image installation incident at Bodh Gaya indicates that Britain was wary of Japanese influence expanding into India, even though Japan had not yet showed overtly overseas ambitious in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894–1895 and became an undeniable Asian power. For Britain, Japan’s emergence as a major Asian power was a cause for vigilance, even after the formation of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

Given Okakura’s quasi-governmental status, his attempt to purchase land at Bodh Gaya can be seen as an indirect exploratory move by the Japanese state to extend its influence into South Asia. This attempt, however, did not proceed smoothly because Bodh Gaya held significant political importance for Lord Curzon who then foiled his plan. During his tenure as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905, Lord Curzon placed great importance on the preservation of India’s ancient monuments. On 7 February 1900, at the annual meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Curzon delivered a speech on India’s ancient architecture. He stated that he “regarded the conservation of ancient monuments as one of the primary obligations of Government” (Curzon of Kedleston 1901, p. 189). Curzon’s protection of India’s ancient monuments was closely linked to British colonial strategies in India. Durba Ghosh has shown how Curzon’s work on heritage preservation reinforced the colonial narrative of Britain’s enduring rule in India in the early 20th century (Ghosh 2023). Therefore, Okakura’s plan to purchase land at Bodh Gaya clearly ran counter to Curzon’s political ambitions. Regarding the outcome of this matter, J. A. Bourdillon, the acting lieutenant governor of Bengal, recorded the following in his report:

“It appeared to Government, however, that a multiplication of interests at Bodh-Gaya was undesirable, and the Commissioner was informed that the Lieutenant-Governor was not disposed to think that the proposed rest-house should be built.”

(Memorandum by the Bengal Government with notes by Mr. J. A. Bourdillon 1903, p. 227)

J. A. Bourdillon’s report indicates that British Indian officials regarded Okakura as a representative of Japanese interests. They considered his plan to purchase land at Bodh Gaya to be disadvantageous to Britain. In other words, Japan’s involvement as a new player in Bodh Gaya was seen as an impediment to British colonial rule in India. This explains why the Mahant cited British Indian prohibitions on land transactions to reject Okakura’s purchase request, in spite of the absence of explicit legal barriers.

In summary, Okakura’s Indian journey cannot be simplistically characterized as a personal, de-politically religious-cultural exchange, but rather should be understood as constituting a case of South-Asian cultural expedition that was aligned with the goals of the Japanese state. Likewise, his attempt to purchase land at Bodh Gaya appeared to indicate Japanese Buddhist support for India’s Buddhist revival, with the reason for its failure attributed to local religious conflict between Buddhists and Hinduists. However, the religious conflict explanation is undermined by the fact that both Vivekananda and Tagore family who assisted Okakura’s land acquisition in Bodh Gaya were Hindu rather than Buddhists. Fundamentally, as a quasi-official agent, Okakura’s plan to build a rest-house for Japanese devotees revealed Japan’s probe into South Asia and such a probe triggered the vigilant reaction of British colonial authority in India. To prevent possible Japanese encroachment into Bodh Gaya, colonial authorities rejected his land application. On the part of Okakura, however, his failed plan to purchase land at Bodh Gaya, the firm stance of the British Indian government, as well as his interactions with Hindus, prompted him to reconsider the relationship between Asia and Europe, as well as relations within Asia. Buddhism served as the vehicle for Okakura to reconstruct the relations within Asia.

4. To Reconstruct Asia: Asianism in The Ideals of the East

In 1903, a year after his Indian journey, Okakura published his most well-known cultural treatise, The Ideals of the East, in London. In this book, written in English, Okakura famously proclaimed the key concept “Asia is one”. It is curious to note, however, that while Okakura was a prolific writer, he rarely detailed the specifics of his travels in India. Among the few articles related to India, “Indo Ryokō Dan (T. Okakura 1979)” offers the most concentrated reflection of Okakura’s insights on the journey. Since this piece was published around the same time as The Ideals of the East, it serves as a key to understanding the link between his Indian journey and the vision of “Asia is one”. In “Indo Ryokō Dan”, Okakura remarks: “People tend to study China because Buddhism arrived [in Japan] via China; however, since it is arguably safe to say that present-day Japanese Buddhism is Hinduism, I believe it would be better to trace it back to the source and study India.” (T. Okakura 1979, p. 261). From this, it is evident that his understanding of Indian Buddhism during his Indian journey most likely catalyzed his conception of “Asia is one”. Indeed, Okakura’s trip to India was closely linked to Buddhism. First, the very purpose of Okakura’s visit to India was to revive Buddhism. His motive for traveling to India was to invite the Hindu reformer Vivekananda to Eastern Religions Conference in Tokyo. This Conference, organized by the Ōtani branch of the Jōdo Shinshū school, was intended to promote a Buddhist revival. Second, Okakura made multiple attempts to purchase land at Bodh Gaya to build a rest-house for Japanese Buddhists, aiming to strengthen Buddhist exchange between Japan and India.

Furthermore, in the same piece, Okakura also mentions: “In India, our people are warmly welcomed; the reason is that they revere us as the leader of the East. Since their own country has been occupied by England, it seems that those with spirit find the situation rather bitter.” (T. Okakura 1979, p. 261). Whether India truly revered Japan as the leader of the East remains unknown. However, in this statement, Okakura has clearly already integrated India into his vision of “Asia is one” as a counterforce to the West. As such, it is highly likely that the frustration Okakura experienced in India for failing to build a rest place, or a future religious base, for Japanese Buddhists was the direct contributing factor to his desire to speak for a Japanese–Indian Buddhist ecumene, which came to be articulated as an Asian unity. Okakura’s plan to purchase land in Bodh Gaya, a plan without any direct involvement by the Japanese government, should only be seen as a private initiative on the part of an influential Japanese figure rather than a preliminary attempt by the Japanese government to project influence into South Asia. However, the firm obstruction by the British-Indian government to Okakura’s land acquisition plan altered the nature of this event—elevating it from a semi-cultural and semi-political exploration of opportunity into an issue of geopolitical significance. Okakura might have felt a political pressure from the British during the frustration he experienced, and it is reasonable to infer that the concept of “Asia is One” was both a result of and a response to this frustration and pressure.

To argue for the legitimacy of the “Asia is One” concept, Okakura needed to identify certain element shared across Asia—which for him referring to primarily India, Japan, and China. Since Japan was historically and profoundly influenced by Chinese culture, the cultural commonalities between China and Japan required no elaboration. Therefore, it became critically important for Okakura to ascertain whether the commonality was likewise shared by India. Based on this consideration, Buddhism emerged as the most suitable choice. It originated in India and subsequently spread to China and Japan, exerting a significant influence on all three countries. Thus, in his book The Ideals of the East, Okakura employed Buddhism as a framework to construct his argument for the validity of “Asia is One”. How Okakura utilized Buddhism to construct “Asia” becomes evident when we compare the content of The Ideals of the East with Okakura’s “History of Japanese Art” lectures at the Tokyo School of Fine Arts before his trip to India. When we compare these lecture notes (hereafter “Notes”, T. Okakura 1980) with the published text, we can identify significant overlapping between the two, but it is not difficult to find deliberate deletions, additions, and revisions. Accordingly, this section focuses on these textual modifications to analyze how Okakura employed Buddhism to reconfigure the historical relationships between India, China, and Japan.

Structurally, both the “Notes” and The Ideals of the East present a historical narrative of Japanese art. The most significant modification in the published work is the additional content related to Indian Buddhism. These revisions helped shape Buddhism into a cultural nexus uniting Asia against Western hegemony. And at the same time, Buddhism serves as a framework for reconfiguring intra-Asian relations—specifically among India, China, and Japan. Thus, the text pursues dual objectives: Asian solidarity and regional reconfiguration. While this paper focuses on the latter, the former remains indispensable to understanding Okakura’s project. As previously noted, India’s Buddhist revival was closely tied to European Indological scholarship—a connection that inevitably led to Eurocentric distortions in interpreting Buddhist art. For example, it was commonly accepted in those days that Indian Buddhist architecture and sculpture received Greek influences. Okakura’s “Notes” reflected this view when he states regarding Tenji-era art (668–672 CE): “This Indo-Greek style defined the character of Tenji-period artistic forms.”5 (T. Okakura 1980, p. 41). However, in The Ideals of the East, Okakura revised this view: “a deeper and better-informed study of the works of Gandhara itself will reveal a greater prominence of Chinese than of the so-called Greek characteristics.” (K. Okakura 1903, p. 78). This de-Grecizing modification signifies that Okakura pulled Asian Buddhist art out from under the shadow of Western-centric perspectives, while simultaneously strengthening the artistic connections between India, China, and Japan.

In addition to promoting Asian unity, Okakura also utilized Buddhism to reconstruct relations between India, China, and Japan. For Japan, Chinese culture exerted an undeniable influence. Thus, when modern Japan sought to establish its own cultural identity, China remained an unavoidable “Other”. Okakura’s “Notes” similarly acknowledge China’s impact on Japanese culture—not only in art but also intellectually. For instance, he observed that the Heian period witnessed “a shift away from Buddhist teachings toward literary pursuits” (T. Okakura 1980, p. 67)6. This occurred because “Emperor Kanmu established the Daigaku-ryō (大学寮), prioritizing classical Chinese texts and revering Confucianism. He appointed academic positions such as Doctor of Classics (明经博士) and Doctor of Letters (文章博士). Evidently, the era’s scholarly system was grounded in the Chinese literary canon” (T. Okakura 1980, p. 67)7.

However, in the chapter on the “Heian Period” in The Ideals of the East, these statements were deleted. Instead, the focus shifted to emphasizing the connection between Indian Esoteric Buddhism and Shingon. In The Ideals of the East, Okakura delineates the historical trajectory of Esoteric Buddhism as it originated in India, passed through China (during the Kaiyuan era of the Tang dynasty), and subsequently entered Japan. Okakura argued that the introduction of Esoteric Buddhism to Japan brought in “a new philosophical standpoint”. This new philosophy further developed the idea of the union of mind and matter. The Shingon school considers the Word “as lying on the borderland between mind and body”, which is influenced by the philosophy of Esoteric Buddhism. In contrast, although the “Notes” also mentioned Esoteric Buddhism, they only briefly noted that the doctrine of “Sokushin Jōbutsu” (attaining Buddhahood in one’s present body), advocated by the great masters Saichō and Kūkai, occasionally exerted an immeasurable influence on Japanese art, because after which, Buddhist images were no longer depicted as transcendent beings detached from human qualities (T. Okakura 1980, pp. 68–69). Regarding the origins of Esoteric Buddhism, both the “Notes” and The Ideals of the East acknowledge unresolved ambiguities. However, while the “Notes” reference the Indian philosopher Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna (active 2nd–3rd century CE), the published text refers to a process of integration of Brahmanism and Buddhism: “its systematisation seems only to be completed in the seventh and eighth centuries, when a need arose for combining the Brahminical and Buddhist doctrines.” (K. Okakura 1903, p. 130). It is likely that this shift to emphasis on Buddhist-Hindu integration rather than separation and difference was related to Okakura’s interactions with Vivekananda during his stay in India.

Swami Vivekananda introduced Neo-Vedanta to the West at the 1893 Parliament of Religions in Chicago, and he described Buddhism as part of Hinduism. According to Togawa (2023, p. 130), during the journey from Bodh Gaya to Benares, Vivekananda held repeated discussions with Okakura concerning the relationship between Japanese Mahayana Buddhism and Vedanta philosophy. The Advaita Vedanta advocated by Vivekananda posits that all phenomena in the universe embody Brahman, the ultimate Real. This view implies that both opposing existences contain Brahman, thereby reconciling dualism. In The Ideals of the East, we can observe similar expressions when Okakura Tenshin describes Shingon Buddhism: “in every object alike was contained Vairochana…Crime, from this point of view of transcendent oneness, becomes as sacred as self-sacrifice, the lowest demon as naturally the center of the pantheon as the highest god” (K. Okakura 1903, p. 130). Inspired by Vivekananda, Okakura recognized philosophical commonalities between Neo-Vedanta and Shingon Buddhism. This led him to assert that in the comprehension of Indian thought, “Japanese, by their greater India affinity, enjoy an advantage over the Chinese, who are withheld by that strong common sense which is expressed in Confucianism” (K. Okakura 1903, p. 143). In essence, in The Ideals of the East, Okakura deliberately downplayed the influence of Confucianism on Japan while emphasizing affinities between Vedanta philosophy, Indian esoteric Buddhism, and Japanese Mahayana Buddhism. This indicates that when incorporating India into his “Asian vision”, Okakura redefined the narrative of Japan’s profound cultural indebtedness to China. By leveraging philosophical connections between Japanese Mahayana Buddhism and Indian Vedanta, he reconstructed the links between India, China, and Japan, thereby reconfiguring a new “Asian” cultural order. This redefined Asian cultural order can be glimpsed through an anecdotal observation in The Ideals of the East:

The memory of the wonderful enthusiasm that was born of this continental fusion of the moment survives to this day in Japan, in a quaint folk-story of three travellers meeting in Loyang. One came from India, one from Japan, and one from the Celestial soil itself. “But we meet here”, said the last, “as if to make a fan, of which China represents the paper, you from India the radiating sticks, and our Japanese guest the small but necessary pivot!”

(K. Okakura 1903, p. 114)

Okakura, through the voice of a Chinese character in the story, revealed Japan’s pivotal position in Asian culture. This Japan-centric reconfiguration of Asian cultural order essentially reflects Okakura’s vision for Asia’s political landscape. In The Ideals of the East, he explicitly states that the Sino-Japanese War cemented Japan’s hegemonic status in the East. According to Okakura, as the new Asiatic Power, Japan’s mission includes returning to Asia’s own past ideals and revivifying the dormant life of the old Asia unity, so that we can seek a higher solution in India religion and Chinese ethics to solve “the sad problems of Western society” (K. Okakura 1903, p. 223). While presenting Asia’s revived ancient civilizations as remedies for contemporary Western problems offers a positive evaluation of Asianism, this rhetoric simultaneously insinuates a logic that seeks to politicize cultures of Asia as well as of the West.

5. Conclusions

This article examines Okakura’s 1902–1903 journey to India within the framework of modern Indo-Japanese Buddhist diplomacy, with particular focus on his land acquisition attempt at Bodh Gaya. Since the Edo period, Japanese Buddhism had maintained a close alliance with state power. Even though Buddhism was marginalized after the Meiji Restoration, it continued serving state interests through various means. Buddhist exchange served as an example of Track II diplomacy to support state foreign policy objectives. Proposals for a pan-Asian Buddhist community had appeared in Japanese diplomatic initiatives as early as the Meiji era. Okakura traveled to India to invite Vivekananda to the Eastern Religions Conference in Japan, which was aimed at reviving Buddhism domestically. With the consideration of such situation, his journey represented an extension of modern Japan’s Buddhist exchange, which served as an example of Track II diplomacy, inextricably linked to state power rather than a personal cultural exchange. In India, accompanied by Vivekananda and Surendranath Tagore, Okakura visited Bodh Gaya multiple times to negotiate land purchase with the local Mahant for constructing a rest-house for Japanese devotees. But his attempt ultimately failed due to his foreigner status. In fact, contemporary legal documents confirm no prohibition against land sales to foreigners in Bodh Gaya. Moreover, both Vivekananda (a Hindu reformer) and the Hindu Tagore family supported Okakura’s plan. Therefore, neither legal restrictions nor religious conflict adequately explain the failure.

In reality, British Indian authorities blocked the purchase because of Okakura’s quasi-official status—fearing that the vihara would legitimize large-scale Japanese entry into India. Essentially, Okakura’s India visit, particularly the Bodh Gaya land purchase plan, constituted Japan’s probe into South Asia, which the British India government promptly prevented. The British-Indian government prohibited Okakura from purchasing land in Bodh Gaya because it was wary of the Japanese interests Okakura represented as a quasi-governmental official. British authorities feared that the construction of a monastery would establish Japan as a new player in the area, thereby obstructing British colonial policies in India. As a result of this official intervention, the land transaction in Bodh Gaya escalated into a political event symbolic of Great Game. The frustration Okakura experienced in Bodh Gaya compelled him to directly confront pressure from the West, which in turn catalyzed his vision for “Asia is One”. After leaving India, Okakura published The Ideals of the East in London, in which “Asia is one” was proposed. Textually, this book shares contents with his “History of Japanese Art” lecture notes. Comparative analysis reveals two deliberate revisions: first, challenging Western-centric Buddhist art narratives while establishing intra-Asian cultural connections; second, diminishing Confucianism’s impact on Japan by emphasizing philosophical affinities between Japanese Mahayana Buddhism and Indian Vedanta to reconstruct new India–China–Japan relations. Ultimately, this reconfiguration sought to rebuild Asia’s political framework upon cultural foundations, positioning Japan as the pivot of Asia.

The above analysis broadly outlines the intrinsic connection between Okakura’s Indian journey and his “Asia is one” doctrine. This linkage exposes risky tendencies within early Japanese Asianism. Okakura’s strategy in The Ideals of the East—reconfiguring Asian order in the name of Buddhism—serves as a critical reminder: terms like religion, culture, and civil exchanges, viewed as distant from politics in modern contexts, can function as subtle instruments of political influence. Asianism thus inevitably became discourse serving a Japan-centric Asian framework in Meiji era. Finally, we return to this paper’s opening question: What form of Asianism is needed? Historically, Asianism’s positive dimensions have been extensively discussed—for instance, using Asia’s ancient civilizations to solve Western problems, resisting imperialism, fostering intra-Asian solidarity, and supporting anti-colonial movements. Nowadays, scholars still view Asianism as a potential framework for enhancing international cooperation and mitigating regional conflicts. By revealing Okakura’s strategy of reconfiguring Asia through Buddhism, this study explores a crucial safeguard to prevent Asianism from being a political tool, not to serve hierarchical orders constructed by dominant powers.