As the crumbling remains of the Buddhas of Bamiyan fell from the cliff-face, there was a shot heard round the world. The Taliban’s dynamite ignited a wave of ‘bamiyanization,’ sending shockwaves through both terrorist circles and the international community. When the dust finally fell, the international outpouring of response and condemnation of the destruction revealed a changed attitude towards ideas of collective cultural heritage and individual criminal responsibility for the destruction of heritage. Thus, the true emergence of terrorist-iconoclasm began with the Buddhas of Bamiyan, linking mass communication through the newly evolving internet with an instillation of fear and assertion of legitimacy and dominance to target and erase monolithic symbols of a non-Islamic and non-Sunni past in Afghanistan. The examination of ‘bamiyanization,’ the proliferation of terrorist-iconoclastic acts on heritage sites and symbols across the Arab world and the international reaction stemming from destruction, is integral to understanding cultural property law of the present and modern conceptualizations of collective cultural heritage. Thus, through the presentation of the history of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, the Taliban’s attacks on the statues, the international outcry, and legislation that sprung from the destruction, the idea of bamiyanization will be unpacked.
THE BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN: A HISTORY
Roughly located in the heart of Afghanistan, Bamiyan was once a pivotal city on the Silk Road within the Hindu Kush. The cosmopolitan city held a strategic position that connected China, Persia, and India together along the Silk Road, resulting in multicultural influence on the Bamiyan Valley. Along this trade route marched merchant convoys and armies, preceded by Buddhist monks spreading their teachings across the mountain chain. At the height of its prosperity in the seventh century, the Bamiyan Valley was a sprawling metropolis of commercial and religious activity, with trade occurring in the heart of the city and meditation and religious practice scattered around the cliff-faces in built monasteries and within niches carved into the caves of the cliff. In Afghanistan, Buddhism spread in the second century C.E. with the rule of the philosopher-king Kanishka, a Buddhist convert, until the introduction of Islam in the tenth century. Though there is no record of the construction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, it is believed that they were carved in relief at some point in the sixth century C.E. during Bamiyan’s prosperous years. The first recording of the monolithic statues comes from Hiuan-Tsang, a traveling Chinese Buddhist monk, who was attempting to reach India to study Sanskrit. Noting the presence of a third, “sleeping” Buddha, Hiuan-Tsang presents the Buddhas as they stood at the height of their majesty, glittering and awe-inspiring:
To the northeast of the royal city there is a mountain, on the declivity of which is placed a stone figure of Buddha, erect in height 140 or 150 feet. Its golden hues sparkle on every side, and its precious ornaments dazzle the eyes by their brightness. Eastward there is another statue of standing Buddha named “Che-kia,” that is tall more than 100 feet. The body has been constructed in assembled blocks, subsequently covered and adorned.
Carved from the living rock, the Buddhas were gilded, adorned with mica, and painted, with lapis and red ocher decorating their stucco tunics. Their arms were constructed of wood and then encircled with stucco, the hands in the position of dharmacakra (teaching), varada (compassion), and abhaya (fearlessness), Buddhist mudras for teaching lessons. Hiuan-Tsang described jewelry hanging from the Buddhas’ necks and ears, as well as bronze masks that were attached to their faces. Art historians believe that the niches in which the Buddhas stood were once decorated to reflect the heavens with vibrant blue frescoes. Additionally, during ceremonies, flame torches may have rested on their shoulders to illuminate their glittering appearance. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were a site of pilgrimage for both Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, inspiring awe and appreciation in all who passed through the Bamiyan Valley. With the passage of time and the disappearance of Buddhist practice from Bamiyan, the statues were reinterpreted by those who encountered them. Islamic writers of the Middle Ages recorded that the statues were known as Surkh But (‘Red Idol’) and Khing But (‘Moon-white Idol’). Locals reinterpreted the statues as pagan kings and queens of a former empire, as the larger Buddha became “Solsol,” meaning “year-after-year” and the smaller became “Shahmama,” a “king mother.”
It is of note that 2001 was not the first time that the Buddhas of Bamiyan faced iconoclastic attack. With the invasion of Genghis Khan in the Bamiyan Valley in the thirteenth century, the statues were targeted, though they remained standing after the attacks. However, in this incident, the entire valley of Bamiyan was conquered and pillaged, leaving no man, woman, child, or statue unscathed. In the late seventeenth century, Mughal emperor Aurangzeb fired at the statues with guns as part of his conservative campaign across the region, known for banning even music during his reign. Less than one hundred years later, in a military campaign, Persian King Nadir Shah destroyed the wooden faces and knocked away the legs of the larger Buddha. As monumental statues, the Buddhas of Bamiyan make an easy target, but, despite these attacks, the statues stood for nearly fourteen centuries until the Taliban’s terrorist-iconoclastic acts that brought the statues crumbling.
THE TALIBAN’S DESTRUCTION
The risk of the statues’ destruction began in 1996, when the Taliban took control of Kabul, giving them de facto sovereignty of Afghanistan. An Islamic fundamentalist and Pashtun nationalist movement led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban, meaning “The Seekers,” wished to incite an Islamic Revolution in Afghanistan and re-establish Sharia law to unite their country, torn by civil war and famine. Gaining support from civilians who were enticed by the promise of stability and peace, the Taliban took control of the majority of Afghanistan by the late 1990s, though the international community did not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate power. In 1998, a preliminary attack was made on the smaller of the Buddhas, but, soon after in 1999, Umar issued a decree of protection for all non-Muslim cultural property. However, due to a number of motivations and factors that will be examined further below, the Taliban’s attitude changed. On February 26, 2001, Mullah Umar issued an edict that all idolatrous statues in Taliban-controlled regions were to be destroyed:
In view of the fatwa of prominent Afghan scholars and the verdict of the Afghan Supreme Court it has been decided to break down all statues/idols present in different parts of the country. This is because these idols have been gods of the infidels, who worshipped them and these are respected even now and perhaps may be turned into gods again. The real God is only Allah and all other false gods should be removed…If people say these are not our beliefs but only part of the history of Afghanistan, then all we are breaking are stones.
The international outcry following this edict rang across the world. UNESCO and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) pleaded with the Taliban in March, when word broke that destruction was underway. Explosive and heavy weapons were brought to Bamiyan for the destruction and, by March 19, footage of the destruction had been released. The destruction, taking over two weeks, was delayed due to heavy snowfall, and, to atone for this delay, the Taliban sacrificed one hundred cows. On March 26, 2001, journalists were brought to tour the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, an action to bring intentional media coverage of their iconoclasm. As the dust settled, a wave of bamiyanization sprung from the destruction and international response, a cycle repeated into the present.
In attempting to understand the motivations that drove Taliban leaders to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan, both religious and political factors must be considered. Academics have attempted to theorize and understand the underlying motivation, but the decision to destroy the statues was a culmination of various factors. While the primary drive was an assertion of legitimacy and power in Afghanistan, intentionally broadcasted to the world, the destruction was a manifestation of reclaiming and eliminating the pre-Islamic past, fear of potential idolatry, lashing out due to sanctions, and influence from Al-Qaeda. The religious motivations will first be examined.
As an act of iconoclasm, the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban follows an ancient tradition of Semitic religious discontent with anthropomorphic figures and idolatry. Throughout history, the world religions that emerged from the Near East held a shared discomfort with imagery, each with episodes of iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is defined as the intentional destruction of icons or images for political or religious motives. In Islam, aniconism is an established practice in religious art to avoid any anthropomorphic forms, however, figural decoration is prolific in secular art of the region. This aniconism arises from both the Qur’an and the Hadith, a record of the traditions preached by the Prophet Muhammad. Likely a response to non-Islamic religions, these oppositions looked down upon the materiality and polytheistic nature of other religions and put emphasis on the word of God. According to Halbertal and Margalit, “The ban on idolatry is an attempt to dictate exclusivity, to map the unique territory of the one God.” From the Islamic religious texts, two primary oppositions to anthropomorphic decorations arise: the concern with not overstepping divine creative powers and fear of shirk. For example, in the Hadith, it is said:
Narrated Sa`id bin Abu Al−Hasan: “While I was with Ibn `Abbas a man came and said, "O father of `Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn `Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle. I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' “Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn `Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other inanimate objects" (3.428)
The idea of overstepping divine creative powers comes from the concept that artists make life when they create figural forms. Allah, alone, has the reserved right and power to make life, and, thus, if artists attempt to create life through art, he or she is disrespecting the divine creativity of Allah. In regards to the fear of shirk, this term originally was used in reference to confusing other gods with Allah, but, now, primarily refers to the idea of polytheism. Furthermore, there is explicit direction in the Hadith to destroy any idolatrous imagery found, venturing further than merely the condemnation of idol worship:
Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib: “Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah's Messenger sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling it. This hadith has been reported by Habib with the same chain of transmitters and he said: [do not leave] a picture without obliterating it” (Hadith).
It is from here that radical Islamic terrorist-iconoclasm derives its mission to obliterate any idolatrous imagery, non-Islamic or Islamic figural art alike. Umar, in an attempt to follow in the footsteps of great Muslim leaders, issued the edict encouraging the destruction of idolatrous imagery as a declaration of his faith and the piety of the Taliban, claiming, “I ask Afghans and the world's Muslims to use their sound wisdom …. do you prefer to be a smasher of idols or a seller of idols?”
Despite the fact that Buddhists make up an insignificant minority population in Afghanistan, Umar’s argument for the destruction outwardly expressed the fear of the potential of shirk. Claiming that, as they stood so prominently on the cliffs, the Buddhas of Bamiyan could be worshipped, with little contemplation of whether they had actually been actively worshipped in the modern day. The attack on the Buddhas was not an attack on Buddhism itself, but on non-Islamic and non-Sunni religious imagery. Furthermore, due to the high profile media attention the Taliban intentionally brought to this case, the “smashing of idols” was the Taliban’s proclamation of their stance on non-Islamic practice and idolatry, asserting their legitimacy as Muslim puritans dedicated to the implementation of Sharia law and orthodox practice of Islam. Taking this religious sentiment and fervor even further, Jamal J. Elias suggests that the timeliness of the destruction also played a significant role with symbolic underpinnings. As Elias pointed out from examining the Islamic Hijri calendar, the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan coincided with Eid al-adha, a holy time dedicated to remembering Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son for Allah. Drawing from this significance, Elias claims
Mullah Umar's choice of occasion can hardly be considered accidental, since the other major act for which Abraham is remembered is his decision to break from the idolatry of his father and ancestors, an obvious precedent on which the Taliban modelled their decision to right the wrongs of their forefathers in Afghanistan and destroy idols that they openly acknowledged were part of Afghanistan's pre-Islamic heritage. It is in this light that the animal sacrifice on March 19 makes most sense.
With this logic, the premeditation of the entire destruction is more evident, a characteristic of terrorist-iconoclasm that emerged from the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
As the Buddhas were erased from the cliffs, so too was the visual imagery of a pre-Islamic past of Afghanistan. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were one of the characteristic tourist destinations of the country, and their erasure was an intentional act by the Taliban to assert their power and dominance, rewriting the history of Afghanistan, and claiming the past as their own. Underlying this, though, were also a number of political factors. The timeliness of the destruction was impacted by the heightened tensions between the UN and Taliban, especially due to Resolution 1333 that was passed by the UN Security Council in January 2001, nearly a month before the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was ordered. This resolution included harsh sanctions, primarily financial, on the Taliban, and were primarily motivated by the request for the Taliban to surrender Osama Bin Laden. The UN Security Council had reason to believe that the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden in Afghanistan and his presence may also have factored into the decision to destroy the Buddhas. As Al-Qaeda had Salafi-Wahhabi underpinnings, their religious zeal and intolerance towards icons was even greater than that of the Taliban’s. Thus, this influence from Al-Qaeda may have encouraged Mullah Muhammed Umar to issue the edict of destruction and pursue an iconoclastic campaign, though this is just a theory. Finally, Umar claimed that the attacks were statement against the fact that the West cared more about the crumbling stones than millions of starving Afghans. While the Western obsession with the preservation of heritage sites over human lives did anger the Taliban, the primary motivations previously discussed were more deeply rooted than this explanation provided by Umar.
INTERNATIONAL OUTCRY
The motivations having been outlined, this examination is faced with the questions of – Why did the world feel so deeply the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan? Why was there so much media attention? Did the media attention provoke the attacks further? As history has seen a long tradition of cultural heritage destruction, the high-profile attention of this destruction seemed disproportionate, especially due to the fact that there are little to no practicing Buddhists in the Bamiyan Valley. What makes the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan different is that it was the first case of intentional, premeditated terrorist-iconoclasm in the Age of Information. Previously, the Internet did not exist, thus the global connection and communication could not respond in such mass waves. The Internet allows for information to be quickly disseminated, received and responded to, enabling both terrorist organizations and people across the world to share information, be that videos of the destruction or verbal condemnations. Additionally, the advent of terrorist-iconoclasm brought a new age of intentional destruction, where, previously in the modern age, the destruction of cultural heritage had primarily been the byproduct of conflicts. From the moment Umar issued the edict ordering destruction, the world was watching with baited breath and international organizations involved themselves in order to save the statues.
From this response came an outpouring of both condemnations of the Taliban’s actions and suggestions for rebuilding. Arguments for and against reconstruction offer valid solutions, and the conversation exhibits a lean towards protecting collective cultural heritage, by reconstructing or leaving the niches empty. Those in favor of rebuilding the statues argue for the reconstructions to be a statement of resilience and an opportunity for tourism to boost the local economy. German restoration expert, Edmund Melzl, claimed that, "Reconstruction like this is a crucial part of identity and reconciliation. The Taliban wanted to erase history here. If the Afghans have no sense of their past, they will have no future. The Frauenkirche in Dresden was finished fifty years after the end of the war. The sixteenth-century Mostar bridge, in Bosnia, has now been rebuilt using traditional methods. The people here want the Buddhas back." Other supporters of rebuilding include an Italian sculptor who wants to carve entirely new Buddhas down the cliff, a Chinese millionaire couple who have commissioned holograms to project into the hollow niches, and the Governor of the Province who wishes to boost tourism.
Conversely, the argument to leave the niches empty stresses the importance of memory and preserving an attempt at erasure. Afghan French archaeologist Zemaryalai Tarzi, a self-proclaimed “militant for Afghan culture,” argued “I [say] we have to leave the two niches empty like two sinister pages of Afghan history. To underline the folly of human beings, and for the future generations to see what happened here.” Similar to the National September 11 Memorial in New York City, the void left from a destroyed site can have profound and emotional response, perhaps being more poignant than reconstructed efforts. This outpouring support can be seen as one of the byproducts of the effect of bamiyanization.
BAMIYANIZATION
Through the examination of the history, events, and motivations of what occurred at Bamiyan, the effects of bamiyanization on both terrorist groups and international responses provide an important look into the standing of modern cultural property law. Bamiyanization, defined as the proliferating wave of intentional iconoclasm by armed radical Islamic terrorist groups in the Arab World on non-Muslim and non-Sunni cultural heritage sites and symbols, has taken hold across the world. Acts of iconoclasm by terrorist groups have primarily occurred in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Niger, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, areas with similar terrorist uprisings, economic and political conditions, and, some, with the presence of civil war. To understand the idea of bamiyanization, the nature of terrorist-iconoclasm, the emergence and elaboration of collective cultural heritage, and the proliferation of legislation and individual criminal responsibility will be presented.
The appearance of terrorist-iconoclasm directly aligns with the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Terrorism, defined as “violent acts undertaken to further a social, political and/or religious cause with the aim of creating physical, emotional or psychological suffering that extends beyond the immediate audience,” feeds off of fear and power struggles that emerge from this instillation of fear and suffering. Terrorist-iconoclasm has this such effect, with an intentional action to further religious and political ideology and instill fear through the destruction of a well-recognized visual symbol or site of cultural heritage. Terrorist-iconoclasm differs from the typical destruction of cultural heritage prior to Bamiyan as it involves a degree of intention and premeditation. Terrorist-iconoclasm also can be referred to as “cultural terrorism,” with the target being immobile figures that have stood through time as symbols of either a lost or extant culture.
The aforementioned importance of the Internet in disseminating ideas and news can be attributed to the proliferation of both terrorist-iconoclasm and the international responses to cultural property in danger. The implementation of the media and the link between iconoclasm and terrorism have exacerbated bamiyanization across the world. Media allows for terrorist groups, such as the Taliban, to release footage of their destruction, a poignant visual symbol to instill fear and gain legitimacy and recognition. The effort taken to record every moment of the destruction and broadcast it to the world is also in the nature of terrorist-iconoclasm, as seen in the destruction of Palmyra, the smashing of artifacts in the Mosul Museum, and the attacks against the mosques and mausoleums in Mali. In each of these cases, ghosts of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan can be detected and the Taliban’s actions in Bamiyan have become a frequently copied template for terrorist-iconoclasm. With the Internet, this sharing of destruction is possible, and the waves of bamiyanization reverberate through the Arab World still today.
As a result of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, there has been an increased awareness and sensitivity towards collective cultural heritage. The recognition of a collective cultural heritage has been in circulation in the modern age for some time, as, in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Event of Conflict, it is stated that, “Damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of mankind.” However, this idea truly gained momentum, especially in the implementation of individual criminal responsibility, after the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. It can be argued that the destruction of the Buddhas was not just a destruction of Afghan heritage, but of a heritage belonging to peoples of the world, a common link that runs through cultures and across continents. Additionally, as Bamiyan was a crossroads of cultures on the Silk Road, many different peoples can claim heritage to the Valley’s cultural resources. In response to Umar’s edict, the UN General Assembly highlighted the fact that the Buddhas belonged to the world, a sentiment echoed by numerous members, calling their destruction a crime against “history, art and humanity, but also a crime against peace and stability in the world.” Of important note is that a representative of Germany brought the issue to the floor, an illustration of the universality and impact of the destruction. From this renewed interest in collective cultural heritage sprung individual criminal responsibility and securitizing moves in response to the destruction of this collective heritage.
The effects of bamiyanization include heightened attention in cultural property law, from which important progress sprung and stands today as a pillar of heritage preservation through legal means. In 2003, the same year that the Buddhas of Bamiyan were listed as a World Heritage Site, the 33rd session of the General Conference adopted the Declaration on the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. Specifically citing the destruction of the Buddhas at the beginning of the Declaration, the document introduced the view that cultural heritage destruction should be considered beyond conventional framework of armed conflict, adopting an angle of intentional destruction. The 2003 Declaration recognized the importance of cultural heritage and defined intentional destruction as “an act intended to destroy in whole/ in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or unjustifiable offence to principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience.” Additionally, states parties were encouraged to ratify the preceding conventions protecting cultural heritage and to “take all appropriate measures” to uphold these conventions.
The document also stressed individual criminal responsibility, cooperation with UNESCO and other states parties on issues of risk management and consultation of potential destruction, and the promotion of educational programs and awareness-raising. Legal bases are derived from the idea of crimina juris gentium (crimes against peace and security of humankind), encapsulating war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under this falls the intentional destruction of cultural heritage and, as stated by Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini, “As with fundamental human rights, first, and in the area of environmental protection, later, states may no longer invoke their sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction in order to justify acts of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage of great importance for humanity as a whole.” The Buddhas of Bamiyan, thus, created the momentum for international cultural property law to gain legitimacy and hold perpetrators criminally responsible for their actions. While there is still much more to be done to ensure the protection of cultural heritage, specifically in regards to issues of implementation, the legislation inspired by the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan has lasting effects today in cultural property law, providing a legal basis for future crimes against cultural heritage.
CONCLUSION
Though the Buddhas of Bamiyan may have fallen by the hands of the Taliban and may no longer stand proudly on the cliff-faces overlooking the Bamiyan Valley, their absence tells a story of remembrance, resilience, and change. As the effects of bamiyanization still reverberate today, with increased legislation to protect cultural heritage and heightened individual criminal responsibility, the waves of terrorist-iconoclasm may diminish as the crime no longer goes unpunished. The 2015 trial of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi of the North African terrorist group Ansar Dine by the International Criminal Court for his destruction of the mausoleums and mosques in Mali is evidence of this, a beacon of hope for cultural property law as al-Mahdi must serve nine years in prison for his actions. Without a doubt, al-Mahdi’s trial is a product of bamiyanization, and his trial and conviction likely will not be the last. Through this examination of bamiyanization, the proliferation of terrorist-iconoclastic acts on heritage sites and symbols across the Arab world and the international reaction sheds light on modern understandings of cultural property law and collective cultural heritage. As terrorist-iconoclasm emerged, so, too, did the world’s intolerance of such iconoclastic acts. The empty niches of the Bamiyan Valley will forever serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting cultural heritage, a nonrenewable cultural resource, before it’s too late.