SellingMannysGrill.com

One of the most consistent themes in a world forever engulfed in religious warfare and rivaling ideologies is the destruction of recognizable monuments and artifacts. Generally speaking, when extremist beliefs are put into the heads of those with catastrophic capabilities, the results tend to be devastating. In many ways, the international culture has evolved far enough where these events tend to be far less frequent, yet in the same breath we have to recognize there is still much to be done.

The Buddhas of Bamyan were two gigantic statues built into the side of cliff in the heart of Afghanistan, situated just under 150 miles northwest of the country’s capital Kabul. They were built during the sixth century, directly from the sandstone which formed the cliff itself. Although the actual construction the two statues are believed to have taken place 47 years apart (the first in 507 AD, the 2^nd in 554 AD), it’s believed that the Kushans and the Indo-Hephthalites were responsible for both. Despite most historians giving credit to the aforementioned groups, almost all Afghan groups at one point or another have claimed their people were the creators.

While the statues themselves are carvings in the mountain, the features and details were painted onto them by a mix of mud and straw, and then coated with stucco (a mix of sand, adhesive and water, used to preserve the designs underneath). The stucco lasted hundreds of years, but time would eventually erode away the majority of the details. The statues’ arms and the upper part of their heads were not part of the mountain, but were also believed to be made of stucco. Holes along the outside of the monument would lead one to believe that wooden pegs once were placed there to stabilize the stucco. The larger of the statues was painted red, while the smaller one consisted of a multitude of colors.

Much of what is known about the original art comes from the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang. It is believed that Xuanzang traveled through the Bamyan Valley around 630 AD. He claimed that the area was a prominent source of Buddhist culture, stating that there were “more than ten monasteries and more than a thousand monks.” The statues themselves were decorated with dozens of valuable jewels. He’d go on to claim that there actually was a third statue as well, although historians have concluded that even if this were true the statue no longer exists. A handful of archaeologists continue to search for the third.

The statues stood strong for century after century until the year 2001. Mullah Mohammed Omar is the currently-in-hiding-leader of the Taliban and was Afghanistan’s de facto Head of State from 1996 through the year 2001. He originally stated in the summer of 1999 that the Bamyan Buddhas were historical artifacts that should be preserved as such. He believed that since the entire Buddhist population had long since ventured beyond the borders of Afghanistan, the statues no longer could serve as sources of religion for any Afghan residents and there for were not in violation of Islamic law. He’d go on to say: “The government considers the Bamyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors. The Taliban states that Bamyan shall not be destroyed but protected ”

However, in spite of these claims, much of the extremist clerics in Afghanistan began a religious crusade that valued much more literal interpretation of the Islamic laws. Anything that was considered un-Islamic (and this includes anything from music to sports entertainment) was aggressively protested and often times completely destroyed. Eventually, the Information and Culture Minister Quadratullah Jamal told the Associated Press that 400 Afghan religious clerics from all over the country condemned the statues, stating that they were against the tenants of Islam.

It’s important to note that although Afghanistan is a country recognized by the Taliban government, their views and decisions regarding the Buddhas of Bamnyan were not reflective of the other nations within the Taliban. Active governments such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia protested against the decision and wanted the monuments spared. After their efforts were unsuccessful, they’d go on to claim that the actions taken by the Afghan government were “savage.”

Seeing that the monuments themselves were not individual pieces of construction but rather part of the mountain itself, their demolition was far from a simple process. The destruction lasted over several weeks and would go through a number of stages. Anti-aircraft guns and other artillery were initially used to take them down, but these efforts only served to damage the monuments and did not completely destroy them. Mines were placed at the base of the statues so that when pieces would fall to the ground they’d be blown up once again, completely removing the pieces of any noteworthy characteristics. Finally, the demolition took a turn that made the Pakistani and Saudi Arabian claims of “savagery” seem kind. The Taliban decided to remove some of the local Hazara men from their homes, tie ropes around their torsos, and forcefully lower them down the cliff to place dangerous explosives into the holes once used to support the statues. The entire process was not only expensive and totally illogical, but completely refuted the initial claims from Mullah Mohammad Omar that the statues would be preserved.

“Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them,” claimed Omar in an article published by the New York Times on March 6, 2001. He’d go on to say in another article that the demolition was conducted in accordance with Islamic law, and that it was not done in protest of the economic sanctions placed on Afghanistan by the international community. The Times would add in a later addition that the decision was actually carried out by Omar in a fit of anger after a foreign delegation offered money to help preserve the statues.

The Taliban ambassador-at-large Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi asked if the money provided by the delegation could be used to feed starving children in the country, and they were refused, saying that the money could only be used for preservation of the statues. This was when the decision was made to destroy them. Hashemi refused to acknowledge the fact that a foreign museum offered to buy the statues, which would have provided millions of dollars that Omar could use to feed Afghan children.

On April 19^th, 2004, Omar confirmed the popular opinion regarding the decision to demolish the statues by saying, “I did not want to destroy the Bamyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings — the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddhas’ destruction.” Again, the idea that the cost of destroying the monuments was expensive and that the money could have been used to aid the people of the country was not acknowledged by Omar or any other Taliban leaders.

The most deplorable aspect of the entire situation is that the entire affair was very avoidable. Political leaders in general have a history of contradicting themselves before and after an event occurs, but Omar’s comments after the destruction in 2001 are particularly hypocritical. The fact that he initially wanted to preserve the monuments is irrelevant because the reason behind his decision was never truly understood. He’d claim in one interview that he made this choice because the statues conflicted with Islamic law, but then in another he’d confirm that he was insulted when delegates refused to offer money just to preserve the statue and not aid the people of his country.

The main problem regarding the demolition is that Omar’s initial claims that the statues would be a fine tourist attraction was, in all likelihood, very accurate. If he had accepted money from the delegates (or even a foreign museum) to promote and fix the statues, the entire area would have been one of the Afghanistan’s most profitable communities. Not only could the money from tourists be used to help the people, but the area itself would have created numerous job opportunities for the Hazaras.

Unfortunately, in a country like Afghanistan, or for that matter any country within the Middle-East, the language used in any type of negotiation needs to be so meticulously selected. The violence and destruction has always stemmed from a misunderstanding of the culture, and all of the international community is still learning how to interact with its leaders. Whether their ideologies are justified or not, the actions taken by them are done in the name of principles that they will rarely waver from. In this particular situation, Omar proved that Afghanistan would actually take measures that were detrimental to it’s own people only to prove to foreign delegates that their offers were both inhumane and insulting.

This incident is certainly not the first time that the context of statements/offers were lost in translation while negotiating with the Middle East. The on-going battle with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been the host of countless misinterpretations which led to stand-offs between the United States and Iran. Middle Eastern countries have a history of using violence in the name of their ideas when they are unable to solve their problems diplomatically, but these actions are more often than not taken by radical extremists and not by the governments themselves. That being said, countries such as Iran and Afghanistan have been accused of harboring and funding these extremists because they have been very stubborn in the negotiations and have clear motive to do so.

This can be seen in the talks with Ahmadinejad regarding the advancement of their nuclear facilities. His (general) claim is that they would be willing to shut down their nuclear research if the countries they negotiate with would be willing to do the same. This brings a very sensitive situation to the forefront. While Ahmadinejad is right in wanting an even and non-hypocritical playing field by all involved during a negotiation, he doesn’t recognize the fact that Middle Eastern countries have not earned the right to demand this on the international floor as of yet. It is in this same context that Mullah Mohammed Omar didn’t have the right to ask for the money to feed children, because the Middle East has a track record of misappropriating funds given to them by those outside the region. In effect, the United States and other world powers don’t want to provide the actual money used to create any type of protest or terrorist attack. All funding to the area needs to have specific documentation.

This is where the situation in the Middle East becomes very confusing. It’s important that all countries are recognized in their own right and are not held responsible for those of similar belief systems, yet many of the countries in that region belong to the Taliban which rightfully groups them together. They want to be recognized as individuals yet they come together as a group when they need international funding. This makes negotiations extremely difficult because we the United States have to tip-toe around using precedents from other negotiations in our platform.

The problem with Iran and the nuclear power debate is entirely different from the one involving the destruction of the Buddha statues, yet the reason behind the demolition can be used as an example of what not to do when negotiating with the Middle East in the future. While rebuilding a stable Middle East continues to be an important and necessary concern of the United States, it needs to be understood that Western power and the leaders of the Taliban simply don’t see eye to eye, and the language used is so crucial. Even the most distinctly different situations (from nuclear power debates to that of historical monuments) can be related to each other because every problem we’ve ever had in that region has stemmed from mutual misunderstanding of the cultures.

In an effort to make up for the decision Omar made in 2001, Afghanistan has sought out Japanese artist Hiro Yamagata to rebuild the statues where they once stood. The project is estimated to cost nine million dollars, and if approved, should be completed by 2012. Nothing can truly bring back the authenticity that came with the original statues, but much of the international community has pledged to dedicate funds to the restoration process. In that retrospect, perhaps rebuilding them would be of important significance in regards to relations with the Middle East. By doing this, they are showing some concession and for the first time, a bit of humility. At the very least, it could be viewed as a sign that a common idea has been understood and this is always a building block for future relations.

I personally believe that the destruction of the monuments was a small tragedy. While I’m aware of, and on some level, even understand the conflict that comes with religious differences, things like the Buddha Statues of Bamyan are a part of humanity’s history. They stood not as a threat to Islamic culture, but rather as a testament to the history of the region. By destroying the statues they not only destroyed part of Buddhist history, but they destroyed part of Afghan history as well. Burying, or quite literally, demolishing pieces of history doesn’t make them go away. The stories will continue to be told.

If one positive thing of historical significance came out of the demolition, it’s that 50 caves were found inside the mountain, 12 of which had oil paintings dating back to the fifth century. The destruction of one piece of Afghan history led to the discovery of another. The monument was real. It was tangible, but perhaps a less tangible thing like perspective can evolve from this unnecessary time in history where history itself was destroyed. I only hope that we will move forward and try and understand the past and use it as a structure to build the future on. In that sense, the statues could have a far greater impact on the world than the creators could have ever imagined.