SV: SV: Plight of Buddhist art

[Lynken Ghose]

Dear Mr. Oberoi/Ven. Tantra:

I think that the main point was to express sadness at the loss of a great
monument. This seemed to me, from the postings, to be clear. I don't think
that anyone made a generalization about Afghans. Surely, anyone who destroys
so ancient and valuable a monument is some sort of fanatic or at least not
in his or her full senses.

Mr. Oberoi - as for your posting in regards to Dr. Fosse's comments, no one
can make such a huge judgement about complicity. How can one ascertain such
a thing?

Over the last couple weeks, I have noticed that you two have changed
postings around to suit your own personal use.

These kinds of postings are just a waste of time for the rest of the list.
This list shouldn't be used as one's own personal soapbox. If you're going
to post something, there should be at least some attempt to be constructive
or add something to an argument.

It's easy to say anything over the internet as you don't have to look the
other person in the eye or even hear their voice: all you have to do is push
the button.

Let's please have less of this game playing and more constructive
discussion.

Lynken Ghose



>Dr. Fosse - when you, as an Indologist, a Norwegian, a human being,
>are complicit in the international policy that says the Taleban
>government must be treated as international pariahs and the Afghan
>people as legitimate casualties of an extradition dispute, what right
>do you have to protest when they behave desperately and irrationally?
>When the Afghans have been subjected first to widespread destruction
>by the Russians, then to the funding and arming of disparate private
>groups by the wealthiest country in the world to the point where the
>nation's capital became the permanent battleground of those groups,
>and then to the active and effective hostility of that same country
>with all other nations (except a few like Pakistan and Turkmenistan)
>acquiescing, by what logic can you attribute their adoption of extreme
>ideologies and desperate (and unpleasant) actions to their inherent
>failings rather than to the pressure of contingent circumstance?
>Forgive me, but if your hypocrisy is not clear to you it is quite
>revolting to me; you sound like a German of, say, 1941, complaining
>that Poles are violent terrorists by nature.
>
>Regards,
>Rohan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >As for responsibility, it has to be distributed. The Afghans cannot be
> >blamed for trying to liberate their country. However, they can be blamed
> >for in-fighting, tribalism, and religious fanaticism which are not
> >conducive to restoring the country. The Soviets must take the main
> >responsibility for destroying Afghan society and its vulnerable economy.
> >The West must take responsibility for not helping (enough) after the war
> >was over. Let me remind you, by the way, that the Taliban are relative
> >latecomers. The Afghans that received American help (through Pakistan,
> >which manipulated the situation according to its own needs) in the
>eighties
> >were not quite so extreme as the Taliban.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that the West should have allowed the Soviets to
>occupy
> >Afghanistan unopposed, by the way? I am not entirely convinced that
>India's
> >generals would have been comfortable with the Soviets firmly established
>in
> >Afghanistan. That would put them uncomfortably close to India, and if I
> >remember my Kautilya, there should be at least one country between
>yourself
> >and your ally.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.