Fwd: Bamiyan, Ayodhya and Abuse of History

[L. Suresh Kumar-LSK]

From:  sikhimail at yahoo.com
Date:  Sun Mar 11, 2001 9:17am
Subject:  Bamiyan, Ayodhya and the Abuse of History

To  understand why  the  reflex reaction  of  both Islamists  and
Marxists  to Taliban madness is to draw parallels between Bamiyan
and Ayodhya, we must first enquire under what circumstances these
parallels would be valid.

****

1)  Once upon  time, there stood a magnificent mosque in Bamiyan,
one of the holiest among mosques of Afghanistan.

2)  Barbaric Buddhist  invaders  overran the  Hindu Kush  region,
putting  to sword  many infidels, ie, Muslims, along the way. The
barbarians boastfully recorded that they made a great pile of the
skulls of the infidels, which is not surprising, considering that
the  invading  Buddhists regarded  the massacre  of infidels as a
sacred duty enjoined upon them by the Buddha.

3)  On successfully  completing the destruction of regions in and
around  Bamiyan, and massacring, as usual, a great many infidels,
the  invaders proceed  to destroy  the beautiful  Bamiyan mosque,
because  they regarded the destruction of holy places of infidels
as  a sacred  duty of true believers, mandated by none other then
the Buddha himself.

4)  Then both to give total satisfaction to their Buddha, as well
as  to render the humiliation of the subjugated Muslims complete,
they  erect  a statue of  the Buddha at  the very place where the
mosque  once stood.  And they  also bury  the minarets  and other
debris  of the  mosque beneath the Buddha statue, and the pathway
leading up to it.

5) Years, decades, centuries pass, throughout which, Muslims keep
attempting  to regain  their holy site at Bamiyan. Oral histories
record many battles fought, and many lives sacrificed.

6) Then, when Muslim assertiveness grows in magnitude towards the
end  of  20th century, and  also Buddhist dominance diminishes, a
movement  to  regain the  lost Bamiyan  site gains popularity. By
this time, not only have the Buddhists ceased to offer prayers at
the site, but also, the Muslims have begun to do so.

7)  At  this point,  Marxist  'historians'  of Afghanistan,  who,
having  successfully  exploited  a 'socialist'  system  to  their
advantage,   had   thrived  on  state  patronage,  had  converted
institutions  into  their pocket burroughs, step in. They release
pamphlets,  the most notorious of them titled, quite unabashedly,
"The Political Abuse of History" (!), arguing that, let alone the
Bamiyan  mosque, no  mosque was  ever destroyed  by the  Buddhist
rulers and invaders in Afghanistan. The mosque that was allegedly
destroyed, they claim, was actually situated in Burkina Faso.

Even   as   these  'historians'   side  blatantly  with  Buddhist
communalists,  they  claim  that  theirs is  an  'objective'  and
'independent'   historical   analysis.  They  also  advance  some
crackpot  theories,  such as  that  "Muslim"  is an  articificial
construct  whereas  "Buddhist"  is  a very  real  and  meaningful
identity.  'Logic'  such as this is  offered as proof of the non-
existence of the Bamiyan mosque.

8)  The government of Afghanistan attempts to resolve the dispute
by  settling the  question of  whether  a mosque  existed at  the
Bamiyan  site before  the Buddha statues were erected. A dialogue
is  arranged between  the  contending parties:  the Buddhist  and
Muslim  activists.  Lo  and  behold,  who  are  representing  the
Buddhist  side  as  its  'experts' and  consels  but  these  very
'objective'  and 'independent' Marxist historians! To top it all,
these  'historians'  run away from  the debate soon after joining
it,  because they cannot counter the mass of evidence gathered by
the Muslim side establishing the existence of the mosque!

9)  Dialogue  is totally  shelved; the Marxists  go back to their
pamphleteering,  duly  amplified by Marxist publications, some of
them  bearing  names such as, paradoxically enough, "The Muslim".
Attitudes  harden, matters  come to a boil. Muslim hordes destroy
the  Bamiyan  statue. Even  as many Muslims  are pleased that the
statues  are gone, they would nevertheless regard and condemn the
demolition as a criminal act, not because it is "unIslamic" -- of
course  there  exists no  scriptural justification  for it -- but
because  the  canons of  modern, secular  law that Afghanistan is
governed by say so.

****

If  that  is how the events  in Afghanistan have played out, then
comparing the shelling of the Buddha statues to the demolition of
Babri  Masjid  would  be  quite  in  order,  even  setting  aside
arguments   such  as   that   neither  the   antiquity  nor   the
artistic/archaeological  significance  of babri Masjid is a tenth
of that of Bamiyan statues.

Is it that this logic is lost on Marxists? Certainly not.

Marxists  are  conditioned to  go on  the offensive whenever they
find  themselves in an inconvenient situation. The strategy is to
let loose a stream of bombast, bluff and bluster, turn the tables
using  even  manifestly crude  logic, and thereby throw opponents
off-balance  ensuring that the latter will never gain enough time
to  collect  their wits while  the situation lasts. Later on, the
situ-  ation  will be  forgotten  anyway,  and the  uncomfortable
questions  that the  Marxists would have been compelled to answer
in more ideal conditions would never have been asked in the first
place.

Marxist  'historians'  have  been  peddling  lies  regarding  the
destruction  of Hindu holy places by Islamic invaders and rulers.
The  foremost among the lies is the brazen assertion that even if
there  had been  the  odd  demolition, it  was  not motivated  by
religious  considerations.  It  was all  political  or  economic.
Temples were targetted for their wealth. Mosques were erected  to
proclaim -- and thank God for -- political victory.

Today,  at  the dawn of  21st century,  we have ready evidence to
counter  these lies.  Everybody is  agreed that  the Taliban  are
"medieval",   right?  If   these  guys   would  --   despite  the
countervailing,  modernizing 21st century influences around them,
despite  international  outcry  --  destroy  defenceless  "idols"
standing  unadorned  and  unattended  to;  and  do  so  not  only
completely unprovoked but on the grounds that scripture commanded
them  to do so; .... what would they have done if they had really
lived  in medieval times, invaded Ayodhya, encountered resistance
from the infidels, suffered losses - though incosequential in the
end  --  on  account  of this  resistance,  and  witnessed  'idol
worship' wherever they went?

In  the context of discussing the Taliban offensive, bringing the
destruction  of  the Babri Masjid into  the picture is to place a
red  herring in  the path  of inquiries  such as  the above.  The
Marxists,  naturally, want  to evade  these questions.  Shout and
scream  and do  a song and dance about Babri Masjid and VHP/RSS's
'hypocrisy',  and hope that the situation will pass: that's their
strategy.  I'm afraid  it may  yet succeed,  if one  goes by  the
precedents,  and  yet another oportunity  to expose the tissue of
Marxist lies may yet go un-seized.

Sikhivahan