The sacred and sacrilege
- NOTE OF DISSENT
The Taliban’s blowing up of the world’s unique and unparalleled heritage the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan at the turn of the present century, was condemned all around. But such a condemnation cannot bring bacsk the giant statues engraved on the cliffs some 2500 metres above the sea level in the Bamiyan Valley northwest of Kabul. The statues destroyed by the Taliban were at least 1500 years old and are irreplaceable. Though located in Afghanistan, they belonged to the world, and their destruction left marks on the hearts of people across all faiths as well as atheists. The statues represented the pinnacle of human artistry and were a direct outcome of a labour of love. To destroy such a treasure is, to me, an act of criminality of the worst kind.
There are reports that the statues may be reconstructed — the UN agency, UNESCO, and some countries like Japan are said to have shown commitment to restore them as far as possible. But will the restored work have the same significance the originals had? The Abu Simbel temples were threatened by the Aswan High Dam and relocated through one of the world’s greatest archaeological feats to higher grounds. But does the newly reconstructed Abu Simbel temple command the same respect as did the original temple that dates to over 1200 BC?
Similar questions emerge in the reconstruction of sacred sites in Lumbini too. Apart from the spiritual solace that it can bring to millions, Lumbini also serves as a Buddhist pilgrimage and tourism destination. It is places like these that are the treasures of the nation and cannot be toyed with by any authority — whether it is the government, political parties, pressure groups, brokers or any other entity. But recent news reports on the deal between the Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation (APECF) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), which would have meant an investment of over $ 3 billion (over Rs 216 billion) for the development of the Lumbini, and its denial by the UNIDO indicates just this. The UNIDO even denied that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the organisation in question and the Foreign Ministry of Nepal also washed its hands off the so-called deal which would have been shady in any case.
The first question that arises thus is who or what is the Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation (APECF)? It is said to be “non-profit” organisation with some eminent people as its top officials. Maoist Chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal and former Crown Prince Paras Shah, among others, are among its nine joint chairmen along with Xiao Wunan as the executive vice chairman. Xiao Wunan is said to be the chairman of the United Nations Organisation for Religious Understanding and Cooperation (one is not quite sure that such an agency exists) and vice chairman of China’s Socio-Economic and Cultural Exchanges Committee as well. The APECF, according to information on an internet portal, “seeks to achieve the revival of eastern civilization in today’s fast changing world by utilizing its influence, creativity, and effective action, as well as through public diplomacy, policy research and social public services, in an effort to promote world peace and the well-being of all human kind.” There is doubt as well as credibility in the information one can amass about the organisation. Given the ambiguity, no one seems to have questioned how it was possible for the APECF to enter into an understanding with the UNIDO - or any other authoritative body - on a matter of sole concern to Nepal. Only Nepal has the rightful authority to do so and it is to be hoped that the Nepal government was not so foolhardy as to rush to sign along the dotted line.
Further, the ignorance of the foreign ministry speaks for the government’s awareness of the project. It would, for its best interest, ask the APECF to clarify why it went ahead and publicised the non-existent deal without obtaining prior approval of the government and the Lumbini Development Committee. Is it because of the false notion that the involvement of a top Nepali politician and the former crown prince would ensure the government’s approval which is a mere formality? Was this why the top bureaucrat in the concerned ministry resigned?
Brokering for money and influence has been for long one of the many tactics adopted by political parties and their supporters in Nepal. Public spaces in the country, especially in the Kathmandu Valley, have vanished over the years and this is mostly because of political parties, their supporters and influential persons close to the Royal Palace in the pre-1990 period. Such persons were and still are confident that their dubious activities will be covertly endorsed later on.
On the face of it, the Lumbini development project deal sounds enticing and seems to encourage the attitude that after so many years and so much spent on the Master Plan, not much has been achieved; so if a good deal can be struck, why not? Such attitude, unfortunately, does not always hold true. The development of Lumbini has to meet some basic principles — it should be able to maintain the sanctity of Buddha’s birthplace, not commercialise it beyond recognition.
Posted on: 2011-08-22 09:38
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
