Adil Najam
There are times when it is not enough to feel outraged. One has to speak out. To express the outrage. To speak out, and to be heard, against that which is wrong. Indeed, there are times in life when it is difficult to determine exactly what is right. Reality, after all, is complex and nuanced. However, there are also times - more often than we think - when there is no ambiguity about what is wrong. Just plain wrong. Silence, at such moments - especially in the face of violence - cannot be justified. The least one can do is to call the wrong, wrong.
In the short life of this blog there have been many such moments. The disgraceful behavior of the police in pulling down the shalwar of a young man protesting his father’s disappearance. The killing of a woman minister in Gujranwalla just because she was a woman. Pictures of violence against women, including by so-called ‘celebrities’ like cricketer Moin Khan and squash player Jansher Khan. The criminal humiliation and murders of tailors and barbers just because they do not conform to some jahil maulvi’s misconstrued sense of religosity. The violence of self-righteous vigilantism. The brutality against lawyers and judges in the aftermath of the Chief Justice’s removal and subsequently since then. The Karachi carnage. The trampling of all political decency in the cause of personal ambition and thirst for power. And more.
If we, as Pakistanis, do not wish to be defined by the acts of the vile people who do such acts, define who we are as Pakistanis, then all of us must speak out in outrage against such acts. To speak with conviction and to speak as a prelude to action.
Now is time, again, to do. One hears now of renewed violence against Buddhist relics in the Swat region by followers of the maverick extremist Fazlullah who has been enticing violence in multiple forms.
The most blatant mutilation of the giant Buddha of Jehanabad was back in October, but since then there have been renewed calls and attacks by militants on Buddhist relics and there is a serious concern that while attention remains diverted towards Gen. Musharraf’s struggle for his personal power, these historical treasures may be lost for ever. As we have written here before, the area is rich in historical heritage of the Gandhara and Buddhist periods, and there is a history of previous attacks on Buddhist symbols in Pakistan, in fact in the Federal Capital Islamabad.
Reporting on the October 8 desecration of the Giant Buddha, Archaeology reported:
The turmoil in Pakistan, especially the situation in Swat, has scholars concerned about the safety of the country’s artistic and archaeological heritage. Relatively peaceful until recently, Swat was a tourist resort with spectacular mountain scenery. It also has a rich cultural heritage, especially Ghandaran art and Buddhist monuments. Adriana Proser, John H. Foster Curator of Traditional Asian Art, at the Asia Society in New York explains, “This area of what is today northern Pakistan was along a major route of the Silk Road. Gandhara was one of the major sites of the Kushan period (first through third centuries). The art of the Gandhara area is extremely important because it shows the impact of Hellenistic and Roman influence ushered in through the conquests of Alexander the Great. The stylistic impact of Gandharan Buddhist art traveled vast space and time, reaching places as far away China, Korea, and Japan. The Gandhara region became part of the Sasanian Empire (224-642), which preceded Islamic rule in Persia, and consequently the arts of the region also influenced artistic developments in the Middle East.”
The consequences of prolonged political infighting in Pakistan, leaving Taliban-like militants unchecked may have dire consequences for this heritage. On Monday, October 8, dynamite was used to obliterate the face of a of 23-foot-high seventh-century seated Buddha carved into a rock face near the village of Jehanabad in the Swat Valley. This was the second attack on the Buddha. In early September, militants detonated explosives placed above and below the Buddha, but only damaged the stone rather than the sculpture. It appeared, according to police chief Mohammad Iqbal in an AFP story, “to be the work of the local militants who condemn these relics as being un-Islamic. It looks more like a symbolic attack to embarrass the government internationally.” A witness in Jehanabad says that the armed group entered the village Monday evening and announced their intention to destroy the Buddha. According to Aqleem Khan, a provincial archaeology department official who spoke to Reuters, the militants drilled holes into the rock, filled them with dynamite, then set off the explosion the morning of Tuesday, September 11. Abdul Nasir, a curator at the Swat museum, known for its collection of Ghandaran sculptures, told AP that “Islam teaches us to respect other religions and faiths, but unfortunately some elements are disturbing the peace in the Swat valley.”
“Any destruction of archeological and artistic sites such as this Gandharan Buddhist relief are an enormous loss for all who treasure historical records and significant and rare works of art,” says the Asia Society’s Proser. The attack recalls the March 2001 destruction of two giant Buddha statues in central Afghanistan by Taliban militants. “The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas was a political act in religious guise, greatly increasing the reputation of the Taliban among its target audience,” says Archaeological Institute of America vice president John Russell. “The AIA calls on all governments, and particularly in this case the government of Pakistan, to protect our shared world heritage from groups that exploit heritage for political gain by destroying parts of our common past.” Adds AIA president C. Brian Rose, “Destroying icons in the name of religion has unfortunately been a component of human behavior since antiquity. In areas of conflict, archaeological institutes throughout the world need to work in unison to document and protect cultural property that is at risk.”
The destruction of the Jehanabad Buddha is on the direct call from extremist mullah Fazlullah who has been spreading his message of hate and violence across the region. We have written before about the jahalat (ignorance) and violence that he has been preaching in relation to his opposition to children being vaccinated against polio and his violent measures against anyone - including tailors who stitch trousers and barbers who shave faces - who dares to go against his xenophobic version of religosity. Fazlullah’s movement enjoys local support from the so-called ‘Local Taliban’ but does not enjoy any support outside of the immediate area.
Fazlullah’s organization is banned by the government and there is military action being taken against him and his followers. However, this campaign is not very successful and the military is suffering significant losses. This is partly because of his local support, but even more because the action is itself half-hearted and strategically misconceived.
Importantly, while Gen. Musharraf is exactly right in diagnosing movement’s such as Fazlullah’s as one of the greatest challenges facing Pakistan today, the General’s obsession with wanting to remain in power has distracted him from taking meaningful action against such criminal actions. While those who believe that simply removing Gen. Musharraf will solve the problem are clearly wrong, it is increasingly evident that his departure is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for meaningfully tackling this menace. It is now increasingly clear that even if Gen. Musharraf has the will to resist religious extremism, he no longer has the ability to do so.
There are, of course, many aspects to what is happening in Swat - not just related to Pakistan’s domestic politics but also to geo-strategic and global realities. My former colleague at Tufts University, Prof. Gary Leupp has written a thoughtful piece on the subject in CounterPunch, pointing out some of these aspects, drawing interesting chronological linkages, and pointing out that a disrespect for cultural heritage in times of war is by no means restricted to the Taliban. But none of this is or can be a justification for what is happening in Swat today.
The treatment of these religious symbols and artifacts in Swat is but a small indicator of the rot of extremism that is setting in, but it is an important indicator. It is important not only because the world has its own sensibilities and is paying great attention. It is far more important because it seems that Pakistanis themselves are not paying enough attention. We need to do so. We need to speak out. We need to stand up. We need to do so not simply because of what might happen to our past heritage if we do not, but more because of what might happen to our own future if we don’t.
At stake here is not just an image on a rock-cliff or our image abroad, at stake here is our own image of who we are and who we might become if we remain silent in the face of injustice.
libertarian
I’m not sure which incident you are hinting at, but the wahabi’s destruction orgies of Shia and Sufi religious places are not new developments. In the early 19th century, saudi hordes drunk on newly-gained power actually went to Karbala and ransacked the shrines of Imam Hussain(as). It’s just sad that the muslims went mental when the British decided to end the farcical Turkish ‘caliphate’ , yet they quickly forgot the art of protesting when the wahabis started their campaign of destruction. If it wasn’t for the Iranian muscle-flexing in the region post ‘79, Baqi` would still be a no-go area for all muslims.
sridhar: interesting insight.
bhitai: the Saudis have their heads where the sun doesn’t shine. What they did to the Shias pales compared to their actions against Pakistani and Indian Ahmediyyas last year. The venture capitalists in Silicon Valley are putting billions into green technology. 10 years from now oil will be much less important than it is today. These illiterate Saudis should party while they still have time. Then, they can return to mounting their camels any way they like.
MQ,
There was actually a dispute about whether the property was a Sunni one or a Shia one in the 1930s (with the former claiming the mosque because Babur was a Sunni and the latter claiming that the person who actually built the mosque, Mir Baqi, was a Shia, as were the Nawabs of Awadh who had contributed to the waqf funds for its maintenance). But in the 1940s (when it was last used for namaz), it was a Shia place of worship until both the mosque and the temple that had existed at that site were locked up pending disposal of the case.
In any case, the complexity of the Babri Masjid case and its incomparability with the Bamiyan or Swat case are best brought out by these verbatim quotes from judgements of two British judges in 1885-86.
1. From the judgement of F.E.Chamier, District Judge of Faizabad dt. 18.03.1885
[quote]“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the masjid built by the Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya, that is to say to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.”[/quote]
2. From the judgement of W. Young, The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (equivalent of the High Court of a province) dt. 1/11/1886
[quote]“This spot is situated within the precinct of grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend, as the site of his mosque. The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precinct adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure namely: (1) Sita-ki-Rasoi (kitchen of Sita) and (2) Ramchander-ki-Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama). The executive authorities have persistently refused these encroachments and absolutely forbid any alteration of the status quo.”[/quote]
Thus, this was a long-standing dispute, with a sense of grievance amongst the members of one community. The judges did not disagree with the grievance, but rightly concluded that maintenance of the status quo (under which Muslims worshipped inside the mosque and Hindus worshipped at the so-called “Ram Chabutra” located just outside the mosque, but within its compound) was the best solution. A wall was constructed as a result of the 1885 dispute to facilitate both communities to use the site without interference. Politics, greed and administrative negligence have all contributed to it reaching the current state of affairs. But it was not a case where people were offended at the presence of the mosque and one fine day set about planning to destroy it.
Sridhar:
Thanks for providing a detailed background of the Babri mosque. I didn’t know, and I am sure many Pakistanis didn’t know either, that the mosque was managed by the Shia community of Ayodhya. I think this fact alone should be enough to dampen the enthusiasm of many “brothers” and “sisters” on this blog about the rebuilding of the mosque. ( “Sister” Tina will probably be an exception, though.) But I agree with you it was a despicable act — as despicable as the destruction of Bamiyan and Swat Buddhas and the burning of the Bodhi tree in my neighborhood.
Well I am happy that Mullahs who are this intolerance are being dealt with by the security forces as we speak. No tolerance for these intolerant Mullahs. This is poetic justice. Alhamdolillah.
Sridhar
thanks for the info. It’s ironical that we Pakistanis went berserk when Hindus destroyed Babri masjid (a purely political stunt by BJP, kinda like what Sharon did in 2000 to incite the 2nd Intifada). However, when our patrons in Saudi Arabia eradicate a historical mosque/site here and there, not a whimper is heard. You probably have noticed how Shias revere their shrines, yet the Saudi kings, out of pure religious prejudice, have kept not one but FOUR graves of Shia Imams literally fenced away from the public. They open the Baqi` cemetery for a few hours every day (I was there last year), and allow no-one to get close to the graves. All you can do is to stand 10s of meters away, gaze at those mounds of sand, and sigh (all the while an ugly-bearded mullah is hovering about regurgitating wahabi propaganda). Imagine if BJP govt had destroyed the Ajmer shrine for reasons grounded in their interpretation of the Hindu scripture. But of course, Hindus are easy to hate, and Saudis..they give us 80000 barrels of oil for free (deferred payments) a day, so long live the king..
Btw. saudi destruction of historical sites is an ongoing process, yet I would never see UNESCO taking interest..
Salamalikum
Sister Tina, you’re all over the place here…going from statues to Wahabis to US to Deobandis. But, let me stay on topic and talk about the statues.
So, it’s settled that Buddah must not be destroyed if they are place of worship (as they seem to be), even if the sensitivities of the local population is “hurt” in this context. Now, the only thing remaining is the hypothetical scenario where the Buddah is not recognized as a place of worship by Buddhists around the world. In this case, respecting the sensitivities of the local community, learned or otherwise, the government should help in the removal of such objects so that the law and order is not disturbed. Heritage or archaeologists’ objections should not outweigh the sensitivities of the local populations. This is the crux of my argument and the orginial post puts emphasize on heritage, which I disagree with.
So, I’m not suggesting that government “collude” with illiterate to destroy something. In fact, I’m suggesting something opposite: Take this action out of the hands of disorganized, non-governmental (and probably illiterate) people and place it in the hand of a governmental-type body.
Libertarian: I don’t think Prof Leupp or anybody here is justifying an abhorring act
of desecrating images or objects – whether sacred or artifact. His piece however, provides a telling social context leading upto such intemperance behavior.