open Democracy News Analysis - The Taliban and the Buddha, - Comments

chris9234 on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

chris9234 — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:31:21 +0000

Why so much anger?

srv on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

srv — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:59:20 +0000

Thit is quite the extreme.

Salma! on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Salma! — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:28:33 +0000

oh boo.hoo!! i think you guys should chill out and do like me and eat a banana. If some statues got destroyed build them again. If the afghan people are starving feed them! the simplicity of it all...

ahhairan on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

ahhairan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:18:47 +0000

The decision made by the Taliban to destroy Budha statutes was totally wrong. as an Afghan, I know that Taliban were not going like human beings. They acted like animals in forest. Their all actions were far away from humanity.

Billy_Coconut on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Billy_Coconut — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:19:44 +0000

Professor Samdhong Rinpoche, perhaps?

Matt Murrell on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:28:01 +0000

So who was I thinking about? Damnit - that's going to bug me now.

englishman on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

englishman — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:13:03 +0000

Nope. Not a Buddhist. Atheist or, if speaking on a strictly logical basis, Agnostic. Must be someone else.

Matt Murrell on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Matt Murrell — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:37:40 +0000

Englishman, Do I recall correctly that you are actually a Buddhist? I seem to remember it being mentioned a while ago, quite a while ago in fact - so I may be mixing you up with someone else completely.

englishman on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

englishman — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:10:44 +0000

I rather think it was an act of stupidity, whether supported by the Taliban hierarchy or not. One of many acts that can occur when galvanising a force of people, with disparate views, towards support of a political idea or religion. The desecration of English churches that happened during the english civil war was not really supported by Cromwell personally, but it was helpful to go along with it at the time. Maybe it is a psychological boost to those who feel they are empowered to destroy symbols of power. A great shame that in the long term serves no purpose.

chris9234 on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

chris9234 — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:57:44 +0000

Matt, I wouldn't be surprised if those who want to fix the statues concoct some formula that includes dispersing food and medicine, maybe a new school, to the local population in the hopes that these actions help temper some of the expected criticism aimed at them as they pour millions of dollars into mixing stone. I'm sure the local populace would be more than a little amused by the considerable importance that these two statues has generated, to both the Taliban and the outside world, particularly when compared to the importance given to the hunger and suffering of their families. The Buddha is meant to symbolize enlightenment...

Matt Murrell on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Matt Murrell — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:06:03 +0000

Chris, Personally, I can't see much justification for spending millions of replacing the statues (or one of them at least) when the general population is so desperately in need of aid. The tourism argument has some merit, but I think the money would be best spent directly on improving day-today living conditions. It's interesting that the destruction of the statues has helped reveal more information about the area. I suppose it helps that such a brutal act has actually aided our knowledge of the area, and the people who constructed it.

chris9234 on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

chris9234 — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:32:03 +0000

Nitro, (I'd really appreciate it if you gave your real name) This isn't about trying to find excuses for the Taliban, or to absolve them of any responsibility for their actions; it's about trying to understand the motivations behind their actions. Matt, What I find interesting in the article you posted is the moral and ethical problem presented by spending millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, on fixing two statues that would then literally cast their long shadows down upon a poverty stricken Afghan people.

nitro_gene on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

nitro_gene — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:43:38 +0000

I don't care about the excuses concocted by the Talibans. Only cheap people vandalize works of art. What really gets me is george bush who says he defends civilisation. suv's is not civilization and george bush would have more credibility if did something for the statues.

Matt Murrell on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Matt Murrell — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:49:41 +0000

Chris, This piece in the International Herald Tribune should interest you: It was in March 2001, when the Taliban and their Al Qaeda sponsors were at the zenith of their power in Afghanistan, that militiamen, acting on an edict to take down the "gods of the infidels," placed explosives at the base and the shoulders of the two Buddhas and blew them to pieces. To the outraged outside world, the act encapsulated the horrors of the Islamic fundamentalist government. Even Genghis Khan, who laid waste to this valley's towns and population in the 13th century, had left the Buddhas standing. Five years later, the Taliban have been ousted from power and Bamiyan's Buddhist relics are once again the focus of debate: Is it possible to restore the great Buddhas? And, if so, can the extraordinary investment that would be required be justified in a country crippled by poverty and a continued Taliban insurgency in the south and that is, after all, overwhelmingly Muslim?

Matt Murrell on "The Taliban and the Buddha"

Matt Murrell — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:56:32 +0000

Chris, Sounds like an interesting book. The Ahmed one at least, I've always been quite wary of Robert Fisk. If I find myself with some spare Xmas book tokens I might give it a go. From the sound of it his take on the Taliban is quite similar to that of Jason Burke in his excellent (and highly recommended) book 'Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam'. He describes them as a "political, tribal and religious movement", and notes that a large part of their ideology was inspired by the fact that the bulk of their contact with the Modern World "involved Soviet helicopter gun-ships, Communist edicts, refugee camps, poverty and exile." The crucial sponsership of the Pakistani intelligence services is also pointed out. I wasn't trying to dismiss the movement as simplistic. Nothing in this world ever really is. But it does seem to me (or appears to me) that the destruction of the statues had more to do with religious intolerance than protests against international aid. As Burke points out, for the Taliban the salvation of the Afghan people didn't lie in international support, but in a return to an idealised past.

The Taliban and the Buddha,

chris9234 — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:36:21 +0000

I still remember the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, the anger, the frustration, and the complete helplessness that I felt back in 2001 when the then leaders of Afghanistan, the Taliban, destroyed the two Buddha Statues in Bamyan Valley. What made it all the worse though was the seemingly incomprehensibility of it all, why would anyone on earth, even religious fanatics, want to destroy such a unique and precious part of civilization's cultural legacy? Even as I sit and think about it now it is still difficult to not feel angry for what I view as a unforgivable and despicable act, yet last night I read a passage that for the first time offered me some insight into why the Taliban may have chosen such a controversial decision as destroying the statues, even as world-wide criticism of their decision was escalating. To the extent that you find the passage convincing is entirely up to you, I'm not entirely convinced myself. Though, I will admit that after reading the passage I did feel somewhat better about the event, and not because I think it was in any way justifiable, but simply because for the first time it seems possible to understand why they chose to do it. 'The Afghans were looking back at a model in their own history to justify their actions today. They found one a thousand years ago. Smashing idols is thus a powerful symbol of faith...' '...the question is not the legitimacy of the model but why they were adhering to it. The answer is not so much that their aim was to antagonize the world - as they did so effectively - but that it was to make several gestures through this one big dramatic gesture. They at one and the same time asserted their sense of identity; they also expressed their disgust with the world which seemed to be indifferent to the suffering and starvation of their families, especially children and women, and more concerned with cultural artifacts; there was also the perverse glee of knowing that they could cause pain to the world that was so indifferent to their own pain. They told the world what they thought of it.' Islam Under Siege, Akbar S. Ahmed