Posted on 11/05/2007 12:24:03 PM PST by LibWhacker
Despite repeated requests by Pakistani archeologists to the local authorities to protect the seated Buddha and other sites, especially after the first attack, no action was taken. In fact, militants were able to carry out their work in broad daylight
The world watched in horror when Taliban forces destroyed the monumental Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan in 2001. Political and cultural leaders from around the globe condemned the attacks. Offers of help poured in. Everyone asked: will the world be ready next time? Alas, the answer is a resounding “no.”
In northwest Pakistan’s Swat valley, armed Islamist militants recently attacked one of the oldest and most important sculptures of Buddhist art. Dating from around the beginning of the Christian era, and carved into a 130-foot-high rock, the seated image of the Buddha was second in importance in South Asia only to the Bamiyan Buddhas.
This, moreover, was the second attack in less than a month. Murtaza Razvi has pointed out that the image that was attacked was not in a remote area. In fact, it was next to the central road that runs through the valley.
Despite repeated requests by Pakistani archeologists to the local authorities to protect the seated Buddha and other sites, especially after the first attack, no action was taken. In fact, militants were able to carry out their work — drilling holes in the rock, filling them with explosives, and detonating them — in broad daylight.
They did this not once, but twice. The first time, the image escaped heavy damage because of the militants’ incompetence. The second time, they were more successful, destroying not only the sculpture’s face, but also its shoulders and feet. As if that were not enough, there are now reports of a third attack.
In 1995, I travelled through the Swat valley to study the area’s Buddhist treasures. Carved in the cliff side or protected in small beautiful museums, these remarkable objects were the pride and joy of local Muslims, followers of the faith for more than a millennium. As a non-Muslim, Indian woman, I was able to travel through the region without any fear and received warm support from local residents. People of all stripes welcomed me, and were often willing to take me to important Buddhist sites.
Today, little over a decade later, the atmosphere is so poisoned that neither local community leaders nor the local police came forward to protect these monuments or claim them as their own. Even sadder is that while Pakistani newspapers widely condemned these attacks and criticised local officials’ indifference, there has been almost no coverage in the international press.
Can it be that after the Iraq war, and the dismaying images of looting at the National Museum in Baghdad, we have lost our capacity to be outraged? Or is it that we have become so inured to bad news surrounding the war on terror that we have no desire to know more?
There is a vast number of important Buddhist sites in Swat and other areas of northwest Pakistan. At this point, all of them are under threat of destruction, thanks to the influential voice of the Islamist leader Mullah Fazlullah, whose father-in-law, Sufi Mohammad, founded one of the extremist orders.
This order was responsible for bringing more than 10,000 jihadi fighters to Afghanistan to fight alongside Taliban soldiers against the United States in 2001. While Mohammad is believed to be languishing in a regional jail, Mullah Fazlullah operates with impunity, using the radio to spread a message of hatred and intolerance.
It is time that the world community not only registers its outrage against such destruction of cultural treasures, but also joins those Pakistanis who are desperately trying to pressure their government to preserve — for their sake and ours — their pre-Islamic cultural heritage. If the world does not act this time, we risk losing one of the most precious legacies of early Buddhist history.
Vishakha N Desai is President of the Asia Society.
Which ones would you suggest? And what exactly do you mean by "self-rule"?
Self-determination
The ones that do today.
The most applicable definition of this term at www.dictionary.com is as follows:
"the determining by the people of the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation, esp. by people of a territory or former colony."
It seems to me that by this definition the US, Canada, and European countries already practice self-determination. If you disagree, please explain what would have to be done differently to enable the white people in these countries to practice self-determination.
The ones that do today.
Please elaborate. Which ones specifically?
At the present time, our populace is about 65% white. That number has dropped by about 5% over the last ten years. At that rate, by 2025, the white populace will have dipped below 50%. Within a decade or so after that, it stands a good chance of being eclipsed by another race.
This makes no value judgement on that other race. It simply acknowledges a fact that when that happens, northern European Whites will have lost another nation where they can control the decisions about laws that affect them.
If our nation were the only one where this model were playing out, it might not be so bad. The fact is most if not all the nations where Whites have been the largest portion of the populace are headed in the same direction.
The U.N. has pushed policies for decades that assure this outcome, whether intended or not. I simply note the trend and ask if it’s a good outcome to achieve, very few if any white self-rule nations.
We have noted that it is deemed impossible for members of two specific groups in our nation to be guilty of racism, even though examples of it occurs often enough. I do ponder what the situation will be like when Whites in the U.S. are the minority.
In the west we build and in the Middle-East all to often they destroy.
Let me get this straight...you're asserting that when the percentage of the white population of the US hits 49% that white people no longer be fairly represented in our government?
And by the way, why are you making it a point to make a distinction between people of northern vs. southern Europeans ancestry? Do you really think there's a substantive diffrence between someone whose great-grandfather was Swedish instead of Italian?
If our nation were the only one where this model were playing out, it might not be so bad.
I thought you weren't making value judgements.
The fact is most if not all the nations where Whites have been the largest portion of the populace are headed in the same direction.
Do you think it's bad when countries have more non-white people in them as a proportion of their population?
The U.N. has pushed policies for decades that assure this outcome, whether intended or not.
Really? Which policies has the UN pushed in the last 50 years to reduce the white proportion of the population in the US? Please be specific.
I simply note the trend and ask if it’s a good outcome to achieve, very few if any white self-rule nations.
You defined self-rule as "self-determination". Whether or not a nation has self-determination is not a function of it's ethnic makeup.
We have noted that it is deemed impossible for members of two specific groups in our nation to be guilty of racism, even though examples of it occurs often enough.
Anyone who asserts that members of such groups can't be racists is an idiot.
I do ponder what the situation will be like when Whites in the U.S. are the minority.
Two questions:
1) What do you think the situation will be like? Since you've pondered it, you must have some idea.
2) Assuming that you find this situation distressing, do you have any remedies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.