1. Outline of the case
Bimaran Stupa No. 2 lies near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. It became famous after the British explorer Charles Masson excavated the stupa between 1833 and 1838 and discovered a richly decorated reliquary casket inside.
The reliquary is small but extremely important. It is a gilded container, dated roughly to the 1st century CE, decorated with figures of the Buddha and attendants, and originally held bone ashes and other relic fragments. Coins found with the casket link it to the Indo-Scythian royal house. The inscriptions and numismatic evidence traditionally refer to King Azes II, but more recent scholarship suggests that they may instead refer to his successor Mujatria, son of King Kharahostes.
Because of this ambiguity, the reliquary is at the centre of a debate about which ruler sponsored the relics and what date and political context we should assign to the stupa. The book summarises this under the heading “Bimaran Stupa No. 2: The Legacy of Mujatria.”
The relics themselves have had a troubled history. The Bimaran reliquary originally contained tooth and bone relics of the Buddha, but these relics were later kept at the Kabul Museum and eventually disappeared, which adds controversy and sadness to the story. The casket alone survives and is now displayed in the Joseph E. Hotung Gallery of the British Museum.
Despite these losses, the book calls Bimaran Stupa No. 2 a “cornerstone of Buddhist heritage”, and notes that it symbolises both the spread of Buddhism in Central Asia and the cultural intersections of Greek, Indian, and Central Asian influences that mark Gandhāran art.
2. Buddhist lens: royal patronage and relic merit
From a Buddhist perspective, the Bimaran Stupa represents royal dāna (generosity) and the use of relics as supports for devotion. The reliquary held fragments of tooth and bone understood to be remnants of the Buddha or early saints.
By financing the reliquary and stupa, Azes II or Mujatria presented themselves as dharmic patrons. Their coins placed inside the relic chamber function like a royal puñña-token: a permanent record that they supported the Buddha’s sāsana and wished to share in its merit.
The presence of anthropomorphic Buddha images on the casket marks a transition from purely symbolic forms (stupas, wheels, bodhi trees) to early human representations of the Buddha, which deepened the sense of personal relationship with the Enlightened One. Reliquary and image together gave devotees a very concrete object for buddhānussati (recollection of the Buddha), strengthening saddhā (faith) and ethical motivation.
At the same time, the later disappearance of the relics underlines anicca (impermanence) in a painful way: even the most sacred bodily remains can be lost, damaged, or scattered. The surviving casket thus becomes a material reminder that ethical guardianship is fragile and must be renewed again and again.
3. Peace Studies lens: relic patronage and non-violent kingship
From a Peace Studies angle, the Bimaran case raises the question you proposed: does relic patronage support peaceful rule?
On the positive side:
-
By associating themselves with the Buddha’s tooth and bone relics, rulers like Azes II or Mujatria project an image of compassionate kingship, aligning their authority with a tradition of non-harming (ahiṃsā), generosity, and moral law.
-
A relic stupa also functions as a pilgrimage centre, where people of many ethnic and social backgrounds meet in a non-violent setting for worship, teaching, and almsgiving. The book describes the Bimaran Stupa as a site that “symbolizes the spread of Buddhism in Central Asia and the enduring legacy of ancient Buddhist kingdoms.”
These elements fit Galtung’s idea of cultural peace: symbols and rituals that normalise compassion and shared identity rather than hostility. When a king publicly supports relic worship, he encourages subjects to value spiritual merit over military glory.
However, the case also shows limits and tensions:
-
We do not know whether these kings always acted non-violently; relic patronage can be a tool of legitimation even for rulers who fight wars elsewhere.
-
The later removal of reliquaries to colonial museums, and the loss of relics from Kabul Museum, illustrate how sacred objects can be caught up in structural violence—systems of power (imperial archaeology, weak local institutions) that damage communities’ access to heritage.
So Bimaran is ambivalent: it shows how relics can serve a peaceful image of kingship, but it also warns that without strong ethics and institutions, sacred heritage can be misused or mishandled.
4. Governance and SDGs: from royal coins to museum glass
Governance questions are very clear in this case:
-
Ancient patronage. The coins and inscriptions show that early Indo-Scythian rulers put political weight behind relic enshrinement. They funded stupas, reliquaries, and ritual ceremonies, creating a basic state–saṅgha partnership that stabilised Buddhist communities in the region.
-
Colonial and modern custodianship. The Bimaran reliquary passed from the excavation of Masson to Afghan institutions, then into the collection of the British Museum, where it is now carefully conserved and displayed, but separated from its original stupa and from its vanished relics.
-
On one hand, this provides professional museum care, research, and public education—supporting SDG 11.4 on protecting cultural heritage.
-
On the other hand, it raises issues of ownership, repatriation, and consent, key themes for SDG 16 (justice, strong institutions) and SDG 17 (equitable international partnerships).
-
-
Documentation and loss. The disappearance of the tooth and bone relics from Kabul Museum is linked in the book to weaknesses in preservation, possible conflict and looting, and incomplete documentation. This illustrates why your thesis argues for clear inventories, legal protections, and ethical codes for relic custodians.
In summary, Bimaran Stupa No. 2 shows a full arc of governance:
-
Royal legitimisation through relic patronage (Azes II / Mujatria).
-
Archaeological extraction and museum collecting in the colonial era.
-
Ongoing heritage management challenges and debates over lost relics and rightful custodianship.
