Miscellaneous News

Lethe

Captain
You know which country wastes excessively time, energy and taxpayers dollars trying to rewrite its past and hope no one notices? India.

Old NameCurrent Official NameKey Foreign InfluenceYear Change
CalcuttaKolkataBritish (East India Company)2001
BombayMumbaiPortuguese (ceded to British)1995
MadrasChennaiBritish (Fort St. George)1996
CochinKochiPortuguese, Dutch, British1996 (city merger)
PondicherryPuducherryFrench2006


The more I read about India, the more I realize loads of "Indian" things have foreign origins. A lot being from the middle east (not necessary Islamic although that is the case for a lot) and british. For example Urdu and Hindi have loads of loan words. A lot of food, clothing and buildings have middle east style due to Mughal influence. Actually hell their government style has that influence since the guys in charge were sultans and later brits. The capital of Gujarat (Modi's home state) is called Ahmedabad and historically that has been a trading port between the Middle East and the South Asian continent. Congress party was founded by a brit and the the word Hindu itself comes from Persian.

If you didn't know this? Well its probably done on purpose. I mean those name changes are quite recent. There's a deliberate effort to downplay a lot of foreign stuff and claim it as Indian. And then you wonder why there's so much energy wasted between Hindus and Muslims because it turns out Islam has been in India for a long time and had a huge influence. You can't just ask its hundreds of millions to just go away and pretend it didn't happen. And denying their link to India, just makes things even more confusing.

I'm glad you brought this up. I would just add the case of the 1992
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Ayodhya. It was a significant event in the rise of Hindu nationalism, the BJP, and communal strife within India.

Iconoclasm is an interesting subject. Whatever else might be said of the urge to smash the complexities of the past in favour of a simple narrative of righteous order, it would seem to be most compelling during the birth of a new nation or entity that is compelled to clearly distinguish itself from the past and perhaps from its neighbours. That is to say, it would seem to be born of a perceived weakness or lack of confidence in the internal cohesion of the nation, in its ability to accommodate complex historical realities without fracturing or becoming vulnerable to subversion. While episodes such as the Taliban's destruction of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2001 are spectacular, more often this plays out at the level of narratives rather than the fate of physical objects, but the principle is the same. History is always being re-written to serve the needs of the present moment.
 
Last edited:

_killuminati_

Captain
Registered Member
I'm glad you brought this up. I would just add the case of the 1992
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Ayodhya. It was a significant event in the rise of Hindu nationalism, the BJP, and communal strife within India.

Iconoclasm is an interesting subject. Whatever else might be said of the urge to smash the complexities of the past in favour of a simple narrative of righteous order, it would seem to be most compelling during the birth of a new nation or entity that is compelled to clearly distinguish itself from the past and perhaps from its neighbours. That is to say, it would seem to be born of a perceived weakness or lack of confidence in the internal cohesion of the nation, in its ability to accommodate complex historical realities without fracturing or becoming vulnerable to subversion. While episodes such as the Taliban's destruction of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2001 are spectacular, more often this plays out at the level of narratives rather than the fate of physical objects, but the principle is the same. History is always being re-written to serve the needs of the present moment.
Taliban smashed the Buddha statues in a hysterical response to the West that were pressuring them to allocate money for conservation of such antiquated relics while Afghanistan was reeling in extreme poverty, civil war, and terrorism (2001 GDP less than $3b for 20 million people; go figure). Basically, they were saying "this isn't anywhere near our top priority". It had nothing to do with rewriting history. Well, atleast that was their official position on record, something that is near always suppressed in Western media.
 
Last edited:

Lethe

Captain
Taliban smashed the Buddha statues in a hysterical response to the West that were pressuring them to allocate money for conservation of such antiquated relics while Afghanistan was reeling in extreme poverty, civil war, and terrorism (2001 GDP less than $3b for 20 million people; go figure). Basically, they were saying "this isn't anywhere near our top priority". It had nothing to do with rewriting history. Well, atleast that was their official position on record, something that is near always suppressed in Western media.

The Wikipedia article linked above goes into some detail regarding reasons given by various Taliban figures for destruction of the Buddhas. Politics and religion are often intertwined, and I think folks can read those statements and decide for themselves on the mix of motives at play. I found
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
account from Michael Semple quite useful:

In 1997, when Taleban commander Abdul Wahed led a Taleban column attacking Bamian, then held by the Shia alliance Hezb-e Wahdat, he declared his intention to destroy the Buddhas [....] In 1998 when the Taleban did shoot their way into the Bamian valley, Abdul Wahed established a presence in the town and prepared to deliver on his threat. He had holes drilled around the head of the small Buddha ready for the placing of explosives. However Mullah Omar [....] gave the order to stop further drilling. That time round the combination of local mujahedin commanders within the Taleban structure and a supportive Mullah Omar saved the Buddhas before the world was even aware of the threat.

In the autumn of 2000, in one of my meetings with the Taleban authorities in Bamian, among other projects which they proposed, they requested United Nations assistance to reconstruct the network of drainage ditches around the top of the niches in which the Buddhas rested. They were concerned at the prospect of erosion damage if the ditches were not maintained. I agreed to pass on the various projects (our bit of the UN of course did not have any money!) meanwhile I recall quipping that in the current atmosphere Buddas were troublesome and so it might be better to brick up the niches and pretend to the Kandahari brothers that the Buddhas had left.

[....] The first sign of this war on idols came when news leaked out of the Kabul Museum that a party of senior Taleban had forced their way in and sledge-hammered part of the museum’s collection of ancient statues. There was much speculation over whether this was genuine iconoclasm or a cover for smuggling antiques [....] Next the Taleban rhetoric started against idols in general and the Bamian Buddhas in particular. It was widely discussed and commented on. Everyone knew it was coming. Various Taleban friends also described meetings they participated in, in which some tried to argue in favour of saving the heritage again, until it became clear that, unlike 1998, this time the leadership had decided to sanction an assault on the Buddhas.

When the Taleban really did start to prepare to blow up the Buddhas, the rhetorical international operation, for all and sundry to be seen to be condemning it, started. The most sincere effort was, I believe, that of a Japanese parliamentary delegation. Three parliamentarians based themselves in Islamabad and started a shuttle diplomacy to Kandahar where they met with the same Mutawakil who had failed to get permission to visit Kabul Museum. Mullah Omar enjoyed teasing them, international supplicants whom he could string along with impunity. I had multiple sessions discussing with this pure-hearted delegation. They kept on thinking of new theological arguments to persuade the mullahs, even as they shifted their demands, just to be allowed to pay respect one last time before the demolition. And at one rather pathetic moment, even before the destruction, the delegation asked my assessment of the prospects of Japanese technology being able to piece the Buddhas together again.

But the issue was not about theology. Politics were destroying the Buddhas. An isolated regime, which had foisted itself on its own population and was being encouraged by al-Qaida to take on the world, had found a brilliant source of international publicity where it could strike a successful pose of defiance. Our condemnation made it all the more important for the confrontationist leadership to go ahead with the destruction. The public arguments were barely relevant.
 
Last edited:
Top