Sat 1 Dec 2007
Tintin in Bengal, or Musee Guimet Controversy
Naeem Mohaiemen
The two month controversy simmering over the loan of centuries old artifacts to Musee Guimet abruptly boiled over Friday. On the Jumma day of rest, a time when many are sleeping in, relaxing, addafying, or contemplating unfinished art projects, a convoy of trucks were loaded with crates of artifacts from the National Museum. Headed to ZIA airport, en route to Paris. Is Paris burning, what’s the rush..?
The French Embassy and some GOB officials had decided that matters had dragged on long enough. The show was supposed to open in October, but Bangladesh citizen groups had thrown a chaku in the works with lawsuits, press conferences, statements and protests. When the courts “vacated” the lawsuit blocking the loan on Thursday, the first shipment got underway in defiance of good manners. Word leaked out, protesters gathered, signs were held, human chains formed, one protester arrested. By the time more people arrived, the trucks were gone.
When the controversy first bubbled up, many of us were too confused to take sides. On both sides of the fence were cultural producers/activists whom we respected. Even the lawyers representing two parties were familiar activists. One friend said to me “boba r shotru nai (the deaf-mute has no enemies), best to stay silent bhai. Too many big guns on both sides.” The opposition to the loan felt like kneejerk nationalism to me. The French are the good guys no, isn’t it Americans we’re all afraid of now?
The French Ambassador said protesters’ concerns are “objectionable and insulting”. Bit foolish that, very undiplomatic language– guaranteed to get everyone’s hackles up. I spent too much time reading Tintin in my wasted youth. But a translated Tintin in Congo remained elusive until I found a bootleg copy in Nilkhet where Tintin is teaching African natives “Repeat after me, Belgium is your motherland”. Rubber-lipped sambos. Yessa boss. Did King Leopold collect art as well? But Zafar Sobhan pointed out that I was making too tendentious a point to link
I went down to the Alliance Francaise cafe, five blocks from my home, to investigate. If there was so much opposition inside Bangladesh, shouldn’t the Guimet at least show courtesy/sensitivity and delay until the issue is resolved? Tish tosh explained the man at the next table: “the people who oppose the loan just don’t want the world to know that this region has such an incredible pre-Islamic heritage.” Those who oppose this loan are the enemies of globalization doesn’t make sense either. Shishir Bhattacharjee?
But the protesters’ position also keeps shifting. First their approach seems reasonable. Then I read their statements and find major flaws. When I point these flaws out, I am treated to a deep freeze. Apparently I am only an ally as long as I toe the line. The initial opposition was focused on the esoteric edges of the debate (if the plane crashes, send replicas, why 4 months, etc), rather than the hard facts. But the hard facts that have been brought out also seem to have holes in them– as I discovered after studying the French embassy+Guimet response.
1. What they’re protesting [comments are my own research finding]
a) set of coins catalogued as “coins”, with no specifics. inconsistent numbers (“50 silver coins, and 8 gold coins” at Dec 3 Bangladesh government press conference, “50 punchmarked coins” in one set of court records, “gold and silver coins” in another record, “93 punch marked coins” in the French inventory)
b) missing accession numbers (no accession number for large and extremely rare bronze statue the Vajrasattva, insured at 200,000 Euro) [UPDATE: This is wrong, there are accession numbers for everything, including this piece]
c) mismatch between number of pieces documented by the French photographer who catalogued the show, the number given in French embassy contract, and the number in Embassy’s press release. incomplete descriptions, missing descriptions on the Bangladesh side. [UPDATE: The mismatches appear on Bangladesh side, not on French side]
d) insurance value of 4 million Euros, for a collection that dates back to 4th century BC. An international archaeological expert has since called this appraisal “financial fraud”. 4 million Euro as per French press release of 25th September, 2.6 million Euro at Dec 3 Bangladesh government press conference. [UPDATE: French have since announced they are raising the insurance by 30%, but I haven't seen a final number reported.]
2. Guimet as a Signifier
There’s no doubt that some/many of the items in #1 were caused by incompetence of the Bangladesh side. This is also a legacy project from BNP time, so the chain of ownership is quite muddled. But if Bangladesh officials are incapable of protecting their own national heritage, what is the Musee Guimet’s responsibility? Truth of the matter is, the bulk of the art looting from Bangladesh already happened from 1960-1990. Lot of people’s frustrations are getting focused now, at the tail end. But often people get galvanized when the problem is made visible through unexpected shards of glass.
The Guimet controversy has become a crucible—because people can see the issues take shape in front of their face, in the form of trucks under police guard, undervaluing, 20 catalogues, etc. It is much harder to crystallize the issue when talking about the V&A, or a collection that was built up before many of the protesters were born. Guimet is taking on the burden not only of its own history (especially post 1945 acquisition of the Louvre’s Asiatic collection, a portion of which was definitely looted property) and this particular fiasco, but is also acting as a signifier for a whole set of colonial/post-colonial museums’ bounty of illegally acquired artifacts.
This is a symbolic battle more than a real one, and in the main a civil war between two factions of Bangla civil society/culture workers. The French are often in the baffled role of bystanders, scratching their heads and saying “these Gauls are crazy”.
3. Precedent for Art Anxiety
When the French Embassy makes a absolutist statement, protesters get further enflamed. The Embassy press statement released contained surprisingly undiplomatic language. I think “really lousy at their job” is a fair summary of some of the players involved. Some examples:
a) Guimet is not in the business of stolen artifacts
Kwame Opoku’s statement on Afrikanet “Musée Guimet in Paris which incidentally also holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia” gets people nervous, even if that bountry was looted prior to Guimet acquisition.
b) French cooperation has been vital to recovering artefacts from excavations
True. Guimet director Jean-Francois Jarriage in the late 50’s worked in the department of archeology in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). However, protesters talk about a relic casket that was taken to France for restoration during this period. I haven’t seen any evidence linking Jarriage to this transfer, so not sure how much basis this is.
c) No legal basis for Guimet to keep the artefacts. They are contract bound to return.
This is true. If you analyze it rationally.
This issue mainly seems to have come up because Louvre is one of 18 museums that have signed a Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums. The Louvre-signed declaration is alleged to be in opposition to the UNESCO Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995). Why does this matter– because some say the Declaration can be interpreted to argue that if an artefact is in danger in its home country (e.g., Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan), it should be preserved in a universal museum for safety– if the argument could be made that relics are being damaged/stolen due to poor conditions in Bangladesh, one could argue that they would be safer in the Guimet. But Bangladesh is not Aghanistan, so the chances that this argument would ever be made seem highly unlikely.
But it’s Louvre that signed it, not Guimet? Well, the confusion comes because Guimet received its Asian collection from Louvre in late 1940s, as part of an exchange with Louvre where Guimet’s Africa collection was exchanged for Louvre’s Asian collection. Therefore some have wondered whether Louvre’s signing of the Declaration covers Guimet as well (according to a London curator I asked, it doesn’t).
4. The Robbery Jitters
Rational people should not be worried that the Guimet itself will steal or keep the artifacts (although lot of the protesters are). The issue here is about art robbery which is, as per references @ end, now the 4th largest form of crime in the world. Here two issues come in:
a. The overall budget for the show (including shonar bangla fashion show etc)– whether adequate security can be provided for the show with that budget.
b. This is where the insurance value becomes crucial. If a 8 million Euro artifact is stolen from the show, and the entire show is insured for 4 million E (or 2.6 million E as per GOB today), you can see the problem.
5. Is Compromise Possible?
The symbolic nature of this battle and the momentum of the movement (esp. in the absence of any other movements) is unstoppable. Compromise is unsexy and for wimps. We Bengalis have never been much for compromise anyway.
An initial draft of the Experts’ Letter to the French Government (full letter @ end of this email) included this conciliatory paragraph:
“We urge the French government and citizens, museum professionals, preservationists and all global cultural practitioners to demand that Musee Guimet immediately cease plans for the “Masterpieces of the Ganges Delta” show until each archaeological artifact in the Bangladesh collection has been examined, photographed, catalogued, appraised and insurance value set by an international panel of experts. Guimet must also take all due diligence steps to resolve the discrepancy between documents, number of items, accession numbers and all other issues that have given rise to questions about lack of transparency in the entire process.”
But the protest confrontation hardened positions and the concluding paragraph now reads:
“While we were originally open to the idea of showing the work at Musee Guimet provided the transparency issues were addressed, the recent actions of the museum has removed any semblance of trust in the organisation, and we are no longer willing to loan our prized possessions to an organisation with such standards of behaviour. The incident, originally restricted to the issue of an exhibition now appears to have created a general distrust in the French government amongst the Bangladeshi public.”
6. On National Pride Of A Small Nation
Bangladesh gets such a very small share of international cultural attention. Our prevailing attitude is that any positive global attention is good. Especially after being hit by both flood and cyclone (two months apart) this year, some people may be yearning for some positive “image building”. This has historically led to a broken-spine approach to European and Northern cultural institutions. The face-off with Musee Guimet seems to be an attempt to make amends– but also runs the risk of running in an extreme other direction, teetering on xenophobia and histrionics.
7. The Lady Vanishes: Hitchcock caper comes on tarmac
Oh and finally the statues vanish, from the guarded airport. Didn’t we all know it was going to play out like this?
###################
Naeem Mohaiemen works on art & technology interventions, using video-archive-text in Dhaka/New York.
###################
Further Reading:
###################
1. A Pro-Musee Guimet POV: Asterix & The Big Fight]
2.Musee Guimet: Response From Person Involved In Show. French Embassy Response, Dec 4th, 2007. Earlier responses from French Embassy:Bangladeshi Protesters are“Misleading the public again!”, Protesters concerns are “objectionable and insulting”
3. Fact-Finding Committee Report: Pg 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4. Protesters Battle Police As Musee Guimet Trucks Roll Out
5. Lala Rukh Selim: In response to the French
6. Shahidul Alam: The Candy Man, Price of Priceless Objects, Missing Jigsaw Pieces
7. Letter To The French Government & Citizens
8. Anisur Rahman: Collected Media Reports
9. Kwame Opoku: Musee Guimet holds “thousands of stolen objects”. Afrikanet: France & The Stolen Art Of Others. Louvre refuses Turkish demand for Ottoman Tiles. Chinese Cultural Relics
10. Major Robberies At French Museums. Art theft 4th largest criminal enterprise
11. Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums
12. Documentation with missing Accession Numbers: 1, 2. Contract Between Culture Ministry & French Ambassador
NEW: Guimet Catalogue Scans:
Cover
Back Cover, Credits, Auteurs, Sommaire, p. 120, 50, 123
134
157, 175, 299
December 1st, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I was on my fund collection rounds for storm affected people, this evening I went to Gulshan.
The current cultural attaché of the French embassy I find is extremely arrogant, I realized it only this evening. Being a friend for about a year now, I only realized today that she has never had a positive thing to say about Bangladeshi culture, music, art, galleries, exhibitions, or any other practice…
Initially I thought I should filter out patriotic/nationalistic emotions and focus on criticism of an outsider, maybe it will help me see our flaws. But then today I found her outright arrogant, ignorant, narrow minded, and rude, when I asked her about yesterday’s incident. Amongst other things she was trying to convince me how in Europe, specifically in Paris, the image of Bangladesh is only made of natural calamities and disasters. And how this exhibition is an opportunity to change that. She even went as far as to say that this show would help put Bangladesh on the map.
“No one knows about Bangladesh, they don’t even know where it is”. She explained how someone in Paris once asked her where Bangladesh is, whether it is in Africa. At this point I lost my patience. I gambled and told her I was sure there are more Parisians who know where Bangladesh is, than who do not know. I was tired of being polite with this pretty and young French woman whom I now started to find very shallow.
By telling me this story was she trying to convince me that Bangladeshi artefacts need to be sent to educate Parisians about where Bangladesh is on the map? Is she only putting down Bangladesh, or is she also telling me that most people in Paris are ignorant? I’ve never been to Paris, has she? It seems I have more respect for Parisians that she does. Which remote French village is it that she comes from? Has she been exposed to different cultures before she came to Bangladesh? Is she being fair to her position? What is her role anyway? Has she closed her mind and stopped learning? Where was she trained anyway?
I have always praised and looked up with respect to the French for the work they have done on World Music, also our Bauls. But this fair maiden and her preposterous attempts to prove and defend the genuineness of this show, has left me filled with disgust.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Thank you naeem bhai.
Good wishes to the ground staff at ZIA.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 am
Naeem,
Below is the Declaration (pdf file) that Guimet is supposed to have signed. I see 18 museums listed, but Guimet is not one of them. Am I missing something..???
http://www.clevelandart.org/museum/info/CMA206_Mar7_03.pdf
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 am
One of the facts missed in an otherwise fine article by Mr Mohaimen is the righteous insistence by the pro-’exhibition’local group is that this was a government to government deal going back years. What is not mentioned at all is that this same Bangladesh government wheeled and dealed many a deal (from Niko, Gatco to others) which is forming the basis for their top leadership currently being guests of government lodging and DUDOK investigations. But when it comes to this particular ‘agreement’ suddenly this ‘government to government’ deal becomes sacrosanct, and the then government of Bangladesh (read Hawa Bhaban appointees) is given a halo that is astonishing. If all previous deals, if all policies involving national interests with other governments is currently under review, why shouldn’t this particular deal also not fall under the same review? Why shouldn’t all the other deals also not be given the halo of ‘government to government’ negotiations and we should accept them? Why use those as the basis for corruption investigations and jail sentences, and this one be considered sacrosanct? And when did the group of ‘human rights activists’ advocating the art exhibition (which includes the sister of a minister-wife couple who are currently in jail for corruption, a relationship which sure must have insensitized her to abuses of power) suddenly become such experts on museums and art? None of this pro-exhibition group, or clique actually since their numbers are pitifully small and is inverse proportion to their sudden accession to the levers of state power, previously showed any interest, or wrote anything, or organized activities with regard anything artistic or matters archeological. Until now, that is, when opposition to the transfer of these objects began to coalesce, and suddenly these people have visited (at whose expense?) the museum in Paris and are reporting it to be such a wonderful place.
In Watergate, the two journalists Woodward and Bernstein were told ‘Follow the money’ by their Deep Throat source. That is indeed sound advice. Once we find out the money angle here, who is being paid how much in what currency, we shall revealed to the nation our very own Artgate.
Thank you, Mr Mohaimen for a fine article. Godspeed!
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 am
Zubaer
1. There was confusion regarding UNESCO declaration. Apologies.
2. The Louvre signed the Declaration on the Importance & Value of Universal Museums
3. In the book “Extract from “The Museums in Bangladesh” by Firoz Mahmud and Habibur Rahman from the chapter initiated by the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Return and Restitution of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin” set up by the International Council of Museums ICOM, page 488, a list of museums where stolen cultural property from Bangladesh is alleged to be held.
http://shahidul.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/museums-of-bangladesh-page-488.jpg
In this list, Guimet is referred to as the “Asiatic department of the Louvre”. Hence the concern of some protesters that the Louvre signature also is equivalent to the Guimet signing the statement. However this confusion may have come because of the reference in Mahmud-Rahman, which may be incorrect. On further research, I found that within the framework of a reorganization of the French national collections, the Musée Guimet transferred its Egyptian pieces to the Louvre and, in return, received the entire collection of objects from the latter museum’s Department of Asian Arts. This is of course not the same as Guimet being a department of Louvre.
I have revised the reference so that it is clear that Louvre signed the Declaration on the Importance & Value of Universal Museums.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 am
Zubaer bhai,
I came across that document yesterday and you’re right. Guimet did not sign that declaration.
I think bringing up that declaration is somewhat irrelevant for the current controversy, though there is a debate to be had in its own right. That they brought it up shows that the protesters’ miscommunication phase is far from over. The declaration says,
In other words, it talks about the “Colonial” period as a distinct period when looting was perfectly fine because apparently no one (read: Europeans) really cared back then. While a debate can certainly be had about that, it is of tangential interest to the current controversy I feel.
While the Guimet has not signed it, I should point out that a large segment of its collection was brought there from the Asian art section of the Louvre in 1945. I have no idea of the terms of the transfer, but it MIGHT be that the Louvre’s signing of the declaration covers part of the collection at Guimet. Again, hardly relevant.
Meanwhile, just to show that miscommunication has come from the French side as well, here’s the a Daily star piece I came across in which the French Embassy acknowledges that the Guimet has in fact signed the declaration! So confusion reigns
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=13263
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 am
UNESCO declaration na, it’s a UNESCO international convention. Museums don’t sign it, states do.
[admin note: Thanks Dhakashohor for the correction. The post has been revised as per your comment]
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
Well, if you know that Malraux himself was put in jail for theft and smuggling of antiquities from Cambodia (see the biography by Lyotard, a full-fledged symptom in its own right) then you can at least nourish a healthy suspicion of the French imperial establishment and insist on the right insurance values and checklists!
It’s so strange to hear this story of the trucks and the airplanes, it sounds so much like thieves in the night. But anyway, there’s something all-too neocolonial about the shiny, refurbished, spectacular Musée Guimet and the booming tourist economy into which it fits, where visitors take such exquisite pleasures in thousand-year antiquities without any particular concern for the present-day cultures of the former European colonies. When the official reps don’t show a little respect while getting the goods out today, then the veneer cracks and
lots of bad memories can rise to the surface…
best, BH
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It is absolutely astounding that the government in Dhaka should be sending those priceless treasures to a museum with such a record, but we are used to scandalous behavior from governments in our part of the world. France is different, or should be. One gets the sense that the emerging supranational entity called “Europe” is eager to project itself to the rest of the world as being liberal, civilised, and humane. If we, who belong to the periphery, are to believe this, France should rein in Guimet instead of helping it along in a criminally inept or simply criminal enterprise as you have described.
If the French want to see those artifacts - and I think that would be a good thing for Bangladesh - their government should take direct responsibility for the exhibits. It should catalog them properly, since the Dhaka museum people have clearly failed to do that, insure them adequately, and ensure their safe return after the display.
Tintin should grow up.
Tapas Roy [via email to DP]
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
PS: It just occurred to me that in the entire process - cataloging, insuring, etc. - Bangladeshi archaeologists, accountants, and perhaps other experts of proven competence and integrity, should be involved in addition to the two governments, since the actions of neither government’s officials have evoked much confidence so far.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Small change in link quoted above:
should now be:
http://shahidul.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/letter-to-the-french-government-10.doc
Best,
Shahidul
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 am
Lots of questions have been raised and are still coming up. Allow one from me…
The contract signing took place in July 2007. Protesters first faced police confrontation/arrest on 31st July 2007, and English daily papers made news on 1st August (which I am being unable to find on their online editions). Bloggers have been discussing it from around that time too (mostly pro exhibition).
My question is… why did it take the big fish in our blogger world so long to get convinced about the protest? Why did it have to be only AFTER the first consignment left Dhaka that your voices are being heard?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 am
Dear Naeem Mohaiemen,
Your article reminds me a book named “King Leopold’s Ghost”.
Your article will knit us, all Bangladeshis across the globe to raise our voice and condemn this heinous act.
DJ
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
pikaname (ZI), possibly one reason more people did not get involved before is because the protesters were poor communicators. I have been following the debate for last 2 months, and found the protesters arguments to be weak, poorly written and sometimes verging on hysterical. It was only in last 2 weeks (mostly I think due to intervention of Shahidul Alam, Rahnuma Ahmed, Nisar Hossain, Shishir Bhattacharjee, Lalarukh Selim among others) that the arguments gained focus and added footnotes and reference. Bangal kono research korte chai na, khali emotion er upor bachte chai.
At times it also it felt like one faction of civil society vs another– respected stakeholders on both side. But certainly the manner in which the artefacts were taken dismayed many. The Guimet at the least could have shown some sensitivity and said we want to take the collection on good terms, not in the face of protests. This may have galvanized many. Unfortunately that is the way it always is, it is human nature to need a crucible or watershed event. Also do not forget that the whole country has been struggling with Sidr, so cultural battles tend to fade in that context. The Chinese only have a muscular approach to cultural lending issues now, after reaching economic dominance.
Some examples of poor communication in past by protesters:
1. If all cargo goes in one plane, and it crashes, we lose everything. [This is a side issue. The Guimet could very easily respond that it won't go on one plane, and in fact it didn't.]
2. Objection to particular government official who is accompanying it. [This made it too micro. Does this mean that if that person does not go (which I think is what happened), then the show is ok?]
3.Mixing facts up as a result of doing hasty research (just googling is not research). Some examples:
- it was stated that Guimet signed Declaration on Universal Museums. I dutifully repeated that fact in my initial writeup. Later it turned out that Louvre, not Guimet had signed that statement. The mixup came because Guimet is referred to as “Asiatic department of Louvre” in the MMahmud-Rahman book. But this may be because Guimet received Louvre’s entire Asiatic collection in late 40s
- it was stated that Guimet didn’t sign UNESCO declaration, but now I am being told that countries sign UNESCO declaration
- in the last letter sent by Prof Serajul Islam Chowdhury et al, 3 of the URLs were dead links (i.e., someone made a mistake in copying and pasting and cut off some of the URL). I did my own research and found the correct URLs, but most people won’t.
4. A general hysterical tone in some communication which made it appear that the opposition was not based on research, but rather some for of cultural nationalism.
5. Speeches, speeches: in one press conference I attended, one elderly gentleman trotted out the same “jalamoi” speech that just puts my generation to sleep instantly. These things are like catnip for the unemployed and manna for the sleep-deprived, but useless for normal citizens.
In recent weeks, I have found the communications to have improved somewhat, although the arguments could still do with more facts and less emotion.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
What has gotten sidelined in the emphasis on “hysteria” is that the contract, lists, appendixes were made available only after a court order. If documents are not easily available, then those who question, those who refuse to be easily persuaded etc can appear to be hysterical, overly suspicious, rhetorical etc. etc. This makes it easy for people in positions of power to dismiss them, to trivialise or malign them (happens to women, to adivasis, blacks, minorities all the time).
- Rahnuma Ahmed
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 am
That’s a good point, Rahnuma has raised and indeed more people should line up and be vocal about the freedom of information act. Could this point about transparency and publication of the contract be clearly made before rather than some of the more ludicrous arguments that were put forth before?
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
For Pikaname, go to the following links where the situation had ben already discussed since October:
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/10/17/unholy-alliance/
and
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/10/01/museum-statues-denied-travel/#comment-146864
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Mr. Mohaiemen’s point about ‘hysteria’ in #14 is well taken. A certain extreme of rhetoric, hot-headed responses have happened. However, the world over, historically, how do citizens or students or groups respond to the use of state power, how do they galvanize themselves into action? How did the ’samizdat’ revolution in Poland, the student uprisings in Paris in 1968, or even the Tienanmen square protests come about? Through word of mouth, by leaflets, slogans and songs, by barricades and sleeping on the streets; that is the means at hand of those who face police trucks, walkie talkies, the full might of state force structures (whose salaries, incidentally, come from their taxes), the deliberate disinformation tactics of state propaganda machinery and officials, the more subtle tactics of bribes and co-option. Disruption of, opposition to, state brutality (and here I must say that the way the trucks rolled out of the jatio jadughor with their drivers laughing, with the police trucks clearing the way with its utterly pricess cargo was a profound act of brutality to its citizens) is ideology in action, and one of its components is necessarily frantic, feverish reaction to news as it filters, or is known, through the grapevine. To those not in the eye of the storm, it might seem chaotic and ‘hysterical’ - anger to injustice fuels the movement, and at times its behaviour and language will seem to have a ‘hysterical’ component.
But again I have to thank Mr. Mohaiemen for writing an article and sustaining a dialogue that has so many dimensions to it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I find some of the positions on this case to continue to be a bit over the top. But putting that aside for a second, is the French institution taking advantage of our naivette and lack of experience. Why shouldn’t they, I would do the same if faced with the choice of an insurance value that is ridiculously low and has the benefit of dramatically reducing my own budget. Melting with joy that Paris is mounting this show led to poor or no negotiations.
The people pushing this exhibition are possibly motivated by
- fear that this chance won’t come again
- not wanting their efforts to go to waste
What I am interested in is the cultural politics, and I am particularly looking at the European side of the issue (the incompetence/confusion/naivete on display on our side is hardly a new phenomenon). There are larger issues of power imbalances in international art production and culture spaces that I would like to engage in. This space can become a crucible to work some of those issues out– although of course the rising temperatures (on all sides) may not make such a discussion possible.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
[...] As the argument between the progressives over Guimet-gate intensifies, here is a counter argument that was sent annonymously. The fault line is clear. We live it up to the readers to decide. Previous post [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 8:26 am
It’s sad to see that Shahidul Alam has to resort to sarcasm and personal attack to make his argument in his piece today on ‘The Candy Man’. If there was time , it would be easy enough to caricature him in the same vein, the ‘man of the people’ who loves to dress in his kurta and ride a bicycle and sit on the floor in the secretariat, but who also gets ambassadors to open his exhibitions and spends his time flying around the world.
But leaving aside those personal points, let’s just raise a few points:
a) It is wonderful to hear his concern about a forty year old battle for a casket and for thirty paintings. Could he please clarify when these latter items were lost, twenty or thirty years or when ago? Would he acknowledge it might take more than a day to rescuscitate these documents? And would he let us know when the claims have been made before and how often he or others have raised any demands for any of these things?
b) Even more wonderful that Shahidul Alam asks why Bangladeshis should have confidence in Ayub Quadri. Perhaps because he has been a decent honest person all his life. Perhaps because he has done whatever job he has been given to the best of his ability and has not sought to kow tow to anyone. Because unlike Shahidul Alam he doesn’t demand payment for everything he does (including of course from some of the more notoriously (allegedly) corrupt people, all in the name of course of professional fees for professional work, but we wont insist on talking about such sensitive things) but does his job as a civil servant within the limitations of what is the bangladesh government structure. you can choose to make it work better, or you can choose to spend your time reviling everything. it’s a choice.
c) Shahidul talks of the ‘government members of the committee’. Please could he inform us of the non government members and their expertise levels and legitimacy to speak on this issue.
d) And at some point it would be good if Shahidul could inform the world at large how he and his fellow protestors represent the ‘population’ of Bangladesh.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Deer Mahamayuri,
Thanks for the links you have posted for me. Those are the types of posts I referred to when I said:
Bloggers have been discussing it from around that time too (mostly pro exhibition).
______________________
Naeem bhai
Regarding post #14, I am not convinced. You should have taken your stand much earlier. Had you done so, maybe there would have been better transparency and focus on real issues. Nisar bhai and Shishir da have been on it for months. It is true, we use emotions, which distorts and digresses us from being on track. But bhai, it is that emotional alertness that tells us something is not right. And its people like you who need to step in on time and dig.
However, I totally can tune in to your post #19. That’s what I will be looking forward to now. I echo…
What I am interested in is the cultural politics, and I am particularly looking at the European side of the issue (the incompetence/confusion/naivete on display on our side is hardly a new phenomenon). There are larger issues of power imbalances in international art production and culture spaces that I would like to engage in. This space can become a crucible to work some of those issues out– although of course the rising temperatures (on all sides) may not make such a discussion possible.
Joy hok!
(excuse me, new blogger, no text formatting knowledge)
December 5th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Dear All Debaters
How can one fancy published brochure suddenly answer all the complex questions about this transfer of priceless art objects I have been reading about these past few days? Do we even understand modern techniques of art theft and forgeries when even in the West competent authorities and scholars can get fooled from time to time?
The art has been physically removed. They are in France. We don’t have them any more. A nice catalogue has been published. We get 10 copies of it. But some basic trust has been lost. There will always be a funny feeling about it. The French have demonstrated their power over us. They never cared that they divided caring people in our society over this issue. Should we be dancing about it?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Rubana asked: “How can one fancy published brochure suddenly answer all the complex questions”
I didn’t say it would answer “complex questions.”
I wrote:
“The catalogue would NOT resolve questions of poor documentation, non-transparent process, insurance value, etc (not it’s role anyway), but it would have, at the least, addressed some concerns about how the show would/could be handled once it arrived at Guimet.”
December 5th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Dear Proshnouttor
Thank you for devoting so much space to me. It would indeed be easy to do a caricature of me. Let me provide some material for your caricature.
Middle class Bangladeshis insist on chauffeur driven vehicles, have their bags carried and find it beneath them to eat at the same table as kajer lok, I find it important to challenge these practices in everyday life. Riding a bicycle is part of that process.
I claim to represent no one but myself. However, if there is a choice to be made between standing on the side of the poor and that of the wealthy, being on the side of the poor would clearly be my choice. I fully recognise my own privileged position, but that does not diminish my allegiance.
I am a professional who works internationally and charges international rates. I see no justification for being paid any less because I am a Bangladeshi. I work for a diverse range of clients, and will admit that my choice of work is based primarily on the creative challenge that it provides and have never asked for a character certificate from my clients. Having said that, when on occasions I have discovered corrupt practice, I have directly campaigned against organisations involved, including those who have hired me. This has led to persecution and withholding of payment for work previously completed, but this is a practice I continue to maintain. I also do a lot of pro bono work for causes that I am sympathetic to.
I do teach worldwide and have a general policy of not charging fees in Asia, Africa and Latin America (except for the wealthier countries like Singapore and Japan), but do charge in Europe and North America. However, I did not charge fees for my lecture in Stanford in October and will not be charging for my lecture in Harvard later this month, as they relate to the politics of equality that I subscribe to. The universities do of course pay for my travel and all associated costs. I have been teaching for free in Bangladesh for the last 23 years.
As for the honesty of Ayub Quadri, I have no means of either verifying or contradicting this. However, I do have concerns with being required to rely on anyone’s honesty where national interest is at stake.
At a simpler level, I would expect the adviser to go through a security scan at Zia International Airport, regardless of his honesty. I would expect you to verify his property deed, should you purchase land from him. I would expect a shopkeeper to count the change when Quadri was paying for something. None of this questions his honesty, but is simply standard procedure. In fact I would be suspicious of someone who actively avoided these procedural matters using his honesty as an excuse.
So let’s return to the facts of the matter.
The original documents provided to the court were definitely flawed and did not contain the minimum requirements of documentation necessary for cataloguing museum artifacts.
The documents provided by the government after Quadri’s press conference were also flawed.
One of the documents was dated the 30th July 2007 by the director of archaeology, GOB, but surprisingly not dated by the French curator. This was well before the court hearing, and should certainly have been available for inspection to the court and to the committee, and at the meeting at the French Ambassador’s residence. This is especially so as the lack of accession numbers was one of the major sticking points in the discussions. The fact that no reference was made to this ‘authentic list’, clearly suggests that no such list existed when the discussions were taking place. A pre-dated document is a fake document. On the other hand, had it genuinely been present, relevant evidence was withheld from the court, which I believe is illegal.
The other document was dated the 22nd November 2007. A full two months after the crates had been sealed. The signing is meant to be done prior to the packing of the crates. This is also specified in the contract (article 6:“This report shall be signed by both the courier designated by the Lender and by the representative of the borrower prior to the packing of the loaned works.”) between the two governments. Both the adviser and the French embassy admit that this was not done. So we have a breach of contract. We also have two officials signing documents certifying the content of crates that they have not even opened. I believe the law takes a position on this. More importantly, we know that ten crates have been taken to France. No one - except for the people who put the items in the crate - and that includes the adviser and the French Ambassador, really knows what is inside those crates. These large crates would not fit inside the scanners at Zia, and opening them was prohibited. So we could theoretically have transported bombs, drugs, or the odd extra artifact had we wanted to, and no one would know. Relying on the adviser’s honesty is hardly satisfactory.
As to the other points raised, I was reporting on what was discussed at the press conference. I made no claims as to the veracity of anyone’s position or statement. That is something the readers will need to do for themselves.
I feel humour and caricature to be very effective means of communication and dissent. Particularly when individual freedoms are curtailed. I would be happy to see yours.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
proshnouttor Says: Perhaps because he [Ayub Quadri] has done whatever job he has been given to the best of his ability and has not sought to kow tow to anyone…
“has done whatever job he has been given to the best of his ability,” I find it difficult to agree with this characterisation because Ayub Quaderi is also Advisor to the Ministry of Education. During the DU student protests of August he was conspicuously silent; when the protests escalated, DU authorities had tried to contact him (impicitly mentioned by the acting-VC, other senior teachers, reported on private TV channels), but there had been no response. From what I know, he was unavailable and remained so. Later, DU/RU teachers were picked up in the middle of the night, blindfolded, taken on remand, allegedly tortured.
Conspicuous silence, no response, inaction. Is this “ability”?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Regarding the concern/issue over reproductions, it is actually very easy and increasingly so. But, other than proximity, sending the artifacts to France doesn’t make it extra easy/dangerous.
You can take 3-D photographs of an object even clandestinely (the equipment gets smaller and lighter and cheaper every year). This enables you to have the specifications/dimensions in intricate detail, and you can use the images to make moulds and casts in China/Philippines/Vietnam at very low cost. Many American/European museums use this technology to copy objects in their collections for commercial licensing (reproductions, or items featuring artifacts as elements in a design like a lampshade or bookend etc) so that we don’t have to loan objects to designers or companies (saves money, reduces risk of theft / damage). And one big worry that the Museums have is that it is now incredibly easy and cheap to copy items with minimal effort. From a business/curatorial perspective, it means a Museum’s ability to leverage and monitor its own assets is declining - what they control is basically the authorized use of their brand rather than access to objects to enable someone to spend hours and hours trying to copy it.
So, someone with the equipment could wander around Bangladesh - either the museums or the actual monuments - and do this quite easily. And increasingly, no-one would even know - they could think it was someone taking a regular photograph with a sophisticated and bulky camera.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
France-bound relics run into legal snags
Thu, Dec 6th, 2007 11:40 pm BdST
Dhaka, Dec 6 (bdnews24.com) – The High Court Thursday asked the government to keep up the restrictions until Jan 15 on sending archeological relics to France for display in a museum.
The HC bench of justices SK Sinha and ATM Fazle Kabir made the ruling after an appeal filed by archeologist Nurul Islam.
Nurul Islam filed a case in October with the Joint District Judges’ Court for Dhaka against the decision of sending Bangladeshi artifacts Bangladesh to France.
On Nov 29, he appealed to the same court seeking a ban on sending the relics. The court, however, did not hear the appeal, prompting Nurul Islam to file a revision case with the HC.
The artifacts were due to be sent for an exhibition at Guimet Museum in France that started on Oct 24. The show ends in March.
Barrister Amir-ul Islam who joined the hearing of the case on behalf of Nurul Islam said the state is responsible for protection of national assets in line with the constitution.
“The assets cannot be destroyed. According to law, the sender of such assets must hold a licence, but the cultural affairs ministry does not have one,” he said.
Barrister Moniruzaman Asad assisted Amir-ul Islam in the hearing.
He told bdnews24.com that the government had already sent a shipment of artifacts. A second consignment was waiting for shipment, which now ran to legal hurdles because of the fresh court order.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Concerning 3b: Jarrige (not Jarriage) must then have been very young, not yet twenty. But true it is that he has been excavating in Pakistan since 1963. And concerning the insurance amount, if, following the information given to you by a person organizing the exhibition,the insurance is not there to indicate the price of the images, what happens then when an image is destroyed (fire, water, truck accident…) or stolen ? The Bangladeshi authorities were probably not well aware of the value of the artefacts preserved in the different museums. A bronze image of a bodhisattva from Kashmir was recently donated to Guimet: estimate price: 1.500.000 euros ! compare this value to the 200.000 euros said to be the value of the Vajrasatva from Mainamati.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
On post no. 8, Brian Holmes wrote:
“But anyway, there’s something all-too neocolonial about the shiny, refurbished, spectacular Musée Guimet and the booming tourist economy into which it fits, where visitors take such exquisite pleasures in thousand-year antiquities without any particular concern for the present-day cultures of the former European colonies.”
Brian, you are one of us! You are hereby granted honorary citizenship into the great community of people who fight for native rights!
We should seriously ponder his words: they are one of the very few, or only one I guess, which came from a non-Bangladeshi participant. Brian knows what’s going on - that it isn’t just about this transaction, but the metropole-native connection. He’s - and dear readers of this posting should forgive me the slang - one who has cased the joint. The joint here being the G Museee a la Cambodian Thefto.
Why isn’t Brian writing anymore? I’d be interested in knowing his further thoughts - he’s referring to a new, more subtle neo-colonialist tourism which direly needs its suppliers in the East. And ultimately pays them well for the troubles and abuse they have to take.
And I wonder - oh how I wonder - if I should sign this particular communication as ‘Oh So Irrational and Quite Unsceptical’?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 am
were the remaining 13 boxes sent ? any news ?
December 11th, 2007 at 11:10 am
This is in reply to Tapas at 31. Unless they have been sent secretly already, weren’t they supposed to be sent on 17 December? I might however be quite misinformed about the date. It is very disturbing that people are not even clear when the rest of the shipment of these treasures is going to happen. Everything should be clear and above board.
Unfortunately everybody is posting very legal complex arguments which is difficult to follow, and may be further confusing the issue. But no one is clearly saying anything.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Will someone please respond on the background of the expert committee? What is their expertise actually? Are they impartial and independent? And what have they found to date? It will be good if they are clear and above board also and even better if they tell us in clear language what are the legal arguments for stopping the exhibition.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:39 am
SC stays HC-directed roadblocks to Paris show of Bangladeshi artifacts
UNB, Dhaka
The Supreme Court Tuesday stayed Thursday’s High Court order of status quo and thereby cleared all the way for government to send the rest dispatch of Bangladeshi artifacts to Paris exhibition.
Vacation-chamber Judge M Joynul Abedin, following an application moved by the government, passed the order lifting the legal roadblocks to display of the Bangladeshi archeological masterpieces at the first major international exhibition at Guimet Museum in the French capital.
The artifacts from five Bangladesh museums were scheduled to be on display at the exhibition under an agreement signed between the French Ambassador in Bangladesh and the Secretary of cultural affairs ministry.
Some 188 items were selected from Dhaka National Museum, museums of Paharpur, Mahasthan Garh, Mainamati and Varendra for the show, which had hit snags amid an outcry from a section of protestors.
The matter eventually had landed in law-court, and the legal hassles were all over with the SC edicts.
From: The New Nation, 19 December 2007
December 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Russia halts London art display (BBC)
Russian authorities have halted a major London exhibition of French and Russian art over claims Britain has failed to guarantee the paintings’ return.
Russia’s culture agency said the show could not go ahead unless the British government took further steps to ensure legal protection for the paintings.
British Culture Secretary James Purnell told BBC Radio 4 he would push through legislation offering better guarantees.
The exhibition had been due to open at the Royal Academy of Arts in January.
Some of the art of the From Russia: French and Russian Master Paintings exhibition had been taken from private collections after the 1917 revolution.
It is thought some of the 120 works of art - which include paintings by Matisse and Van Gogh and other renowned Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works - could be seized to settle private legal claims related to the paintings.
Purnell said he had assured Russia in a letter earlier this month that the artworks were protected under the State Immunity Act of 1978.
Because this is such an important exhibition we are prepared to go the extra mile
British Culture Secretary James Purnell
But Russia’s Federal Culture and Cinematography Agency, Roskultura, said it had not received adequate legal guarantees.
Roskultura spokeswoman Natalya Uvarova said: “We have not received a state guarantee from the United Kingdom.
“We have only a guarantee from the culture ministry, which is not enough for the exhibition at such a level. This is the usual practice.”
As a result, Mr Purnell said he would bring forward the implementation of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Bill 2007, part of which contains the assurances the Russians are seeking.
“Their letter says that that’s what they require and that’s what we will be doing because we attach such importance to cultural relations as a way of furthering relations between our countries,” he told the BBC’s World At One programme.
“Because this is such an important exhibition we are prepared to go the extra mile,” he added.
The bill, which was passed earlier this year, will be put through parliament when MPs return on 7 January.
Russian officials have yet to respond to the announcement.
Political problems
The exhibition, which includes works from the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg and Moscow’s Pushkin Fine Arts Museum, is currently in Dusseldorf, Germany.
The cancellation comes at a time when relations between Russia and the UK are particularly strained.
“Both the Russian and the British governments deny that this is part of the bigger political disagreement between them,” said BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall, “but it’s hard not to see it in this context when the list of disputed areas between the two sides is so great.”
Relations between the two have worsened since former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in London last year.
In July, Britain expelled four Russian diplomats over Moscow’s refusal to extradite a key suspect in the murder.
Russia followed by expelling four British diplomats and, last week, ordered the British Council to close down its two offices outside Moscow by the beginning of January.
The Russian foreign ministry said the council, which promotes British culture abroad, was operating illegally. The British Prime Minister’s office denied the claims.
The director of the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, Mikhail Piotrovsky, told the BBC politics and culture should not be mixed.
“Remember that Russia and Britain regularly have these flashpoints which come and go,” he said.
“Culture should function independently and we have never suffered such a connection.
“We have many projects with Britain. Political relationships change but I sincerely hope that nobody will use this for a fleeting political gesture,” he added.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/7153569.stm
December 20th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Professor Lala Rukh Selim of Dhaka University (Fine Arts) has sent in this response to the Guimet’s Response
In reply to Guimet Museum’s response
A list of questions was sent to the organisers at Guimet, to which they have responded. Their response (henceforth, referred to as “Guimet Response” for the sake of brevity) reflects their wish to clarify and to bring transparency to what had unfortunately become rather murky. I am very appreciative of this. However, having said that, I would like to point out that some central questions remain unanswered, or unaddressed.
1. One of the basic concerns of the protesters has been the form of cultural exchange, more specifically, the cultural benefit that the exhibition promises to bring to Bangladesh; the royalty issue has come up in the context of concrete benefits. As quoted in the Guimet Response example, the Gupta exhibition improved India’s image in France, it was also linked to an exchange Picasso show, held in India. The cultural exchange and mutual benefit that was involved is perfectly obvious, this we do not see happening in the planned Bangladesh show.
Since it is usual procedure for borrowers to bear all expenses including insurance for a loan exhibition, the question of Bangladesh bearing any financial burden is redundant.
2. I thank the organizers for explaining the principles of insurance (”It should be mentioned that insurance is set to cover the expenses in case of damage; this is not the “price” of the objects”. Insurance values are not the “rent” for the artifacts”).The Guimet Response states that the insurance valuation is the lenders responsibility. Yet at a press briefing on 25 September 2007 in Dhaka, the French Embassy informed reporters that, “insurance value was set according to international standards…And then upped to 2 million euros and then doubled to 4 million euros through custom bonds.” What are these international standards and were these set by the Bangladesh museums? If so, why were they so arbitrarily increased? It is not clear.
Insurance, as I see it, works as safeguard and security for the insured object. The insurance value is set to compensate for the damage or loss of the insured object. The more valuable the object, the greater is the insurance value. My concern is that each item should have appropriate ‘nail to nail’ insurance coverage from the moment it leaves the museum to its return, including periods in transit.
3. Inconsistency in the list of artifacts has been the cause for greatest concern, as it is an issue of basic professionalism. The missing accession number of the Vajrasattva from the catalogue printed for the exhibition is a major lapse. Incidentally, the number given in the Guimet Response 1165 is at variance with the number in the final list signed by both parties, where it is 763. The accession number registers a museum artifact. Without it, the object has no identity. It does seem to be a little high handed of the French to have taken it for granted that all the loans desired by them would indeed be permitted by the Bangladesh side and to have finalized and printed the catalogue for the show even before the list was finalized. It seems like Bangladesh never had a choice in the matter.
Whatever the explanation is, it is a fact that the lending and borrowing parties were not present simultaneously for physically examining, identifying the artifacts and countersigning the documents. Article 6 of the contract between the parties specifies this categorically. It states, “The Lender shall draw up a condition report for each of the loaned works. This report shall be signed both by the courier designated by the Lender and by the representative of the borrower prior to the packing of the loaned works in Bangladesh and then upon unpacking in Paris.” That this clause was not observed, surely violates the contract? The documents were signed after the packing was completed and on different dates, not simultaneously.
4. On the issue of the number of folios in the Prajnaparamita, Guimet Response quotes as reference S.N. Siddhanta’s A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Varendra Research Library, Rajshahi, 1979. The fact is that the Guimet is lending the artifacts from the Varendra Research Museum and it is only the lending museum’s documentation, which is relevant in such a case. The Varendra Research Museum does not specify the number of pages in the manuscript. Therefore, we only have the word of the Guimet authorities on this; there is no document to substantiate this statement. That the Varendra Research Museum was unwilling to loan out their artifacts will be made clear in point 6 of this reply. The ICOM Code of Ethics mentions in 3.6 Loans to and from Museums: loans should not be accepted or exhibited if they are of undocumented origin…
As the Guimet Response states, counting the folios is a delicate matter as they are extremely fragile. However, they plan to exhibit the MSS as books for visitors. This seems to be inappropriate for an artifact of such extreme rarity and fragility where the pages cannot be counted.
5. Let us now to turn to the major issue. The fact of the matter is, procedural matters leading to the preparation and signing of the contract (and after) have been haphazard and unprofessional. This is absolutely unwarranted, not only from the Bangladesh government’s side, but also equally from the French government’s side. Let me elaborate, given the path that this contract has followed, we now have no reliable document to refer to. We have to take the word of the Guimet authorities for the number of artifacts, the number of Prajnaparamita folios, the number of painted folios and so on. Transparency and meticulousness in following standard practices have been lacking from the very beginning. Each clarification and amendment was made only after public protests were mounted, but my question is, why should the public have to worry about matters that are procedural?
The proposal for the exhibition was made on 17 March 2005. In 2006, three meetings of the former Trustee Board were held. According to regulations, the approval from the Trustee Board has to be taken before the final contract is drawn. Please refer to Bangladesh National Museum Manual 1.65 to 1.89, page 8 to page 11. The contract was made on 31 July 2007. However, the new Trustee Board was informed of this on a meeting held on 3 October 2007. The Bangladesh National Museum’s new Board of Trustees was appointed a week or so before the meeting; however, as many know, at the meeting itself, the Board members were informed of the Guimet exhibition and were asked to give their consent, their opinion was not sought.
6.Added to this, is the heavy handedness of Bangladesh and French government authorities towards the Varendra Research Museum. The latter was pressurized by both the French embassy and the Bangladesh authorities to send the artifacts in their collection to the show. A letter dated November 22, 2006 from the Education Ministry of the Bangladesh Government refers to a letter Number N1110/CULT., dated Nov. 19, 2006 of the French Embassy. The letter states that the entire exhibition project might be cancelled if the described 24 items from the Varendra Research Museum were not lent by the museum authorities. The letter was sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the Rajshahi University and a copy was sent to the University Grants Commission. Considering only the state of the Prajnaparamita and its documentation, the unwillingness of the museum is understandable.
7. The most important fact is that the export of antiquities is totally banned under the Antiquities Act of 1968, except under a license to be granted by the Director of the Department of Archaeology. I know from reliable sources that none of the objects has licenses. They have only been issued No Objection Certificates.
8.The heavy handedness and lack of respect for local authorities have combined to create distrust and suspicion. The fact remains that the paper work was fixed and manufactured every time that they were questioned. This undoubtedly violates museum ethics. The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums clearly states, in the clause concerning Legal Framework 7.1 National and local Legislation. Museums should conform to all national and local laws and respect the legislation of other states as they affect their operation. In the same context, let me mention that the next court hearing regarding the artifacts is scheduled for 15 January 2008. The 10 boxes of artifacts were shipped on 1 December 2007, in the face of public protest despite the state of emergency. The move was irregular and unethical.
9. Further, the context of Bangladesh is not unknown in international museum circles. It is common knowledge that Bangladesh is a major ground for dealers in illicit artifacts. Not only high-level museum officials of Bangladesh but also foreign diplomats are known to have been involved in illicit trafficking of artifacts. In a book entitled Museums of Bangladesh by Firoz Mahmud and Habibur Rahman in page 430 national heritage items, among which was a bronze Manjushree stolen from the Mainamati Museum in 1982, were seized by Chittagong customs as they were being shipped out as the personal effects of diplomats. In page 487 it states that Dr. David R. Nalin took 100 antiquities from Bangladesh. One of them a stone Vishnu from Sialdi of Dhaka district. It is a masterpiece of the highest order noted by Nalini Kanta Bhattasali. It is further noted that in 1979 the Ad Hoc Committee on Return and Restitution of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin set up by ICOM carried out a case study of countries which had lost a substantial part of their cultural heritage. Experts decided to carry out case studies in three countries of which Bangladesh was one (page 482)Senior archaeologists Nazimuddin Ahmed and A.K.M.Zakaria have repeatedly spoken out about objects that were sent abroad from Bangladesh (and East Pakistan) museums in a routine manner, but were not returned. This represents the ground on which we stand, on which we voice our concerns.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
In Professor’s Lala Rukh Selim’s post above she mentions a book ‘Museums of Bangladesh.’ Who was the publisher and which year was it published? A documented instance of such art theft in a published book does indeed raise concern to a new level about the future of the artefacts.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:21 am
In answer to Rubana Azim (37): Firuz Mahmud & Habibur Rahman, The Museums in Bangladesh, with a Foreword by Dr. Nazimuddin Ahmed, Dhaka: Bangla Academy, 1987.
Concerning point 4 in Prof. Lala Rukh Selim’s reply (Manuscripts in VRM), my question would be whether all illuminated folios were photographed before leaving Rajshahi. The Guimet catalogue gives only but very few illustrations : 3 folios out of 6 ones in the “short” manuscript, and 4 folios out of 49 painted ones out of the “long” manuscript. If this was done, and since the remaining folios(3 + 45) are neither reproduced nor described in the catalogue, were the possible remaining photos put at the disposal of the Varendra Research Museum ?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:46 am
Museums of Bangladesh was published by Bangla Academy in January 1987.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Dear Prof. Lala Rukh Selim,
Your concern and the one of your colleagues has real grounds: beside the Nalin case, since at least 2002 (this is when I heard for the first time about it), terracottas from North Bangladesh, probably from the area of Bogra, have surfaced in large number on the Western (i.e. American and European) art market. A large number among them are of very high aesthetic quality.
That the organisation of the Paris exhibition has created a strong reaction among all of you, reflects a deep awareness of the cultural history of Bangladesh and responsibility for its remains. As such, one should direct the movement which has started into practical realisations. Whatever the issue of the situation (and the images are on their way to Paris without any great change to the basic situation), one should try to turn this situation into a positive one: I sincerely hope that this will lead the (political) authorities to understand that a better protection of the archaeological sites is absolutely required and that the time has perhaps come to elaborate a corpus of the architectural and sculptural remains of the country under the head of an academic committee.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 am
ONE OF THE CRATES IS MISSING
Stop Press: 1:40 am December 22. 2007
Emergency meeting reportedly underway at ministry of culture. Uproar at Zia International Airport. Remaining consignment not being shipped as it is incomplete. More than one crate may be missing.
Earlier reports state that the Air France cargo flight arrived late. The crates were waiting for the craft. However while loading one of the thirteen crates was found to be missing. Later the empty crate was found outside the North Western perimeter of the airport grounds in a residential area.
Intelligence sources wishing to be unnamed have confirmed that at least one crate has gone missing.
THIS REPORT IS NOT CONFIRMED
http://shahidul.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/a-flag-fails-to-flutter/
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
this is a real sadness for everyone concerned with our cultural heritage. now the question is what can be done to find the pieces? for anyone serious about preserving our heritage this should be the number one concern. but something tells me that some of those protesting the exhibition will try to use this unfortunate incident to justify themselves, and at the same time conveniently refuse to question their own role in the artefacts being held for over two months in crates rather than being safely put on show. let’s try to overcome that pettiness and find out what happened. at what exact point was it found that a crate was empty? were the contents checked at the airport! if not how was the loss identified? and by whom?
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
See the comment of the French Embassy: http://www.ambafrance-bd.org/article.php3?id_article=609
Press release, 23rd December : theft of artefacts.
On the 22nd December, between 3.30 am and 7 am, a crate containing two small statues belonging to the National Museum was stolen from the service area of Zia International Airport hours before being loaded on a flight. This crate was part of the second consignment of masterpieces from five museums of Bangladesh for the exhibition at the Guimet Museum in Paris that, thanks to the decisive action of the Government, had been cleared for temporary export by the Supreme Court on the 18th of December.
Loose procedures geared towards garment exports have led to such valuable crates being left unattended on the tarmac of the airport in an area where neither the lending nor the borrowing institutions have any control.
Although the inquiries are ongoing and the possibility of a mere theft by petty criminals cannot be discounted, France feels the disappearance of this crate is highly suspicious and could also be the result of a conspiracy by a very small nexus of persons to embarrass France and Bangladesh. Indeed, if the consignment had left on time, and without the very professional attitude of the Bangladeshi courier, the disappearance would have been noted only in Paris, with the corresponding accusations been directed against the French Republic by a small but vocal group of persons.
France condemns such acts in the strongest term : this mutually beneficial exhibition is the result of a long standing cooperation, it is routine, transparent, approved all heartedly by the Government, endorsed by a very large majority of the leading citizens of this country and has been twice cleared by the Supreme Court. It is time for the few opponents to this event to recognize they are a tiny minority and act accordingly. The French Embassy will continue to answer any questions regarding this exhibition.
We have seen an impressive mobilization of the Government’s forces in the last 24 hours, and we have no doubt that fast and decisive action will lead to efficient measures to find the criminals and bring them to justice so that the actions of a very few do not penalize the many.
print this page
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Dear Dr. Claudine Bautze-Picron
In answer to 38 I have to tell you that the Varendra Research Museum has been very unwelcoming and it has not been possible to enter the premises as they are working on rennovation work. However, I talked to an archaelogist member of the expert committee formed by the Cultural Ministry of the Bangladesh Government and was informed that only one photograph of a folio from the VRM MSS was shown to the committee. In fact the committee reported that the photographic documentation was very poor.
As for #40, I completely agree with you and I hope that the issues raised by this Guimet show will help organize us into directing our efforts to protecting our heritage. It is very important to realize however, that knowledge, love and understanding are basic when you deal with artifacts. As you know, Paharpur was completely slaughtered in the name of restoration and that too after being declared world heritage by the UN and also being financed by them. I very firmly feel that the people of our country has to know the wealth of our past and understand why we must protect it. We really must get that message through. I agree that the only way to do that is through documentation and publications, not only scholarly but also for the lay person.
In response to Khaleda in 42, I should think that the artifacts were only safe when they were resting in the original museums that housed them. In fact the constitution of Bangladesh forbids the transportation or destruction of any artifacts. It is strictly forbidden to take any unique pieces from the country even temporarily. These laws were created to stop the trafficking that had ben going on before liberation. I think Bangladesh will only be able to improve its image by exhibiting its heritage when it is strong enough to do it on its own terms. Not with the assistance of a concerned and friendly nation. I guess Iraq had a very high rating in heritage, being one of the cradles of civilization, but it has not helped its image in the present. You can see how the museums were looted along with everything else. It is good to be realistic, to know the facts. One loves ones coutry, one loves ones past not to profit from it but to preserve and cherish it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
If any crate has been stolen - then this is EXACTLY what my concern was before the show. There is no reliable security and gurantee in any Developing country, and BD falls under that category. And that is exactly why I was against transporting ANY national treasure to ANYWHERE outside BD.
IF the government (govt) of BD and France had a govt-to-govt agreement for 100% unconditional, COMPREHENSIVE gurantee (under any circumstance whatsoever, hartal, burglary, pilferage) including loss due to FLIGHT DELAYS, airport security, then how could the items go missing?
Now if a crate is really missing, then can the Govt of BD or the Govt of France gurantee their return, and really honor that agreement?
To me, that agreement doesnt make amy difference, all I see is that what I had expected has sadly happened - and the treasures maybe GONE forever.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Museum Theft Fiasco, French Connection and Reflections on Thaksin & Thai Democracy
Thaksin is extremely popular. Corruption is a myth created by the West to string pull nationalist and populist leaders everywhere. In the past it was bloody military coups that did the job for the US and the West to establish control over oil and gas, minerals and diamonds. Now it’s the myth of corruption propagated by TI on behalf of so called donors and their appointed NGOs in the poor countries.
Military rule is being imposed on many Asian countries but it will be, if required, be violently overthrown.Asians no longer will tolerate US imposed military juntas in democracy loving nations of South and southeast Asia. Asians have become conscious of US double standard and duplicity in its foreign policy.
Because of the military and billions of dollars fed into the secret arm of the dreaded ISI of Pakistan Army Pakistan is now on the brink of collapse and civil war. It was a failed state under Musharraf. Musharraf was brought in and bailed out by Bush. Now with Bush’s time to go Musharraf too has been shown the red card by the US.
The unconstitutional unelected self-imposed military backed government in Bangladesh also enjoys full British and American backing. People are heard joking on the streets saying the US ambassador should be made the PM and the Bengali British ambassador be made the president of the country for their interference in Bangladesh internal matters. Whereas it’s only job was to hold elections in 90 days it is now in power for one year and is satisfying the whims of it’s Western backers. It even went to the extent of letting Bangladesh’s rare museum pieces flown out of Bangladesh secretly in Air France 747s from Dhaka airport inspite of nationwide mass protests. The government used emergency powers to overrule court order not to send the items. It is alleged that an international mafia circle having powerful connections is behind the smuggling of items from poor countries. What is returned are actually replicas which the French part of the racket specialises in.Many of these artefacts will show up in open and secret auction houses in the Westespecially London and New York.
America’s adventurism in Iraq in the long run may turn out to be much costlier and damaging than the Soviet expedition in Afghanistan. The US is basically caught in a quagmire. Russia is no longer under a lameduck drunkard like Yeltsin. It is US military involvement that is fuelling military takeovers in Asia which is surely going to fail miserably. There will be a strong revival of democracy with strong hatred for military rule in countries that have become accustomed to democracy. It’s a pity that the US has now become the source of all evil fascist military rule in the region.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
::puts on best lolspeak::
LOL
Seriously, this is the best setup ever.
I can’t wait to see the isolationists fall over themselves to say “I told you so”. The conspiracy theorists will no doubt have something to say about it too, no doubt. The flamewar will make all of us willing to wait a few minutes before casting judgement… how do you say it… extra crispy.
I look forward to the experience.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Lazarus,
Yes - LOL indeed! For those who think this is an “unimportant issue” lets not turn a blind eye to the wholesale neglect of our heritage and ancient history.
As Claudine Bautze-Picron #40 said, lets hope this fiasco wakes up the realization of how we ignore our national cultural assets.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Bishnu ebong Feluda thukku jhakanaka
December 24th, 2007 at 6:17 am
The French Embassy statement is quite undiplomatic. It shows that while Bengali protesters have their faults, the French Embassy’s handling of the affair (from Day 1), especially their high-handed tone, has done a lot to fan the flames.
Should an Embassy, commenting on such a volatile issue, really use language like this? In a time when peacemakers are saying both sides should cool tempers, and negotiate to compromise, should the Embassy really fan the flames by dismissing the protesters as “small nexus”? Knowing the heated nature of emotions, nothing will fire up protestors more than being called a “nexus”. Usually we hear “military-islamo nexus” or “american-israeli nexus”, etc. And why write a statement which obliquely/indirectly accuses the protesters of engineering the theft? Is this diplomacy?
“France feels the disappearance of this crate is highly suspicious and could also be the result of a conspiracy by a very small nexus of persons to embarrass France and Bangladesh.”
“..corresponding accusations been directed against the French Republic by a small but vocal group of persons.”
“It is time for the few opponents to this event to recognize they are a tiny minority and act accordingly.”
December 24th, 2007 at 6:31 am
responding to kgazi at 48, it is not an unimportant issue at all, of course it is a very serious one to be faced with a major art theft on the eve of an exhibition. but the seriousness is on several levels. first we need to deal with the crime that has happened, and as with any crime we have to ask who had the opportunity and who had the motive. who benefits? do we believe that the bangladesh govt or the french actively took part in this theft - to make themselves look incompetent and incapable (which they do seem to be to allow this to happen)? or should we be asking who were the people who wanted this stopped from the outset, certain very powerful un-nameable elements from a certain agency. how could anyone without security clearance have gone on the tarmac? an open investigation is needed urgently.
the second important issue is the need to safeguard our national assets - and it seems clear that the danger to these is from theft. in this case let’s remember - despite more high pitched claims - it is not in fact the refusal to return artefacts, but a theft which has taken place, and that too on bangladesh soil in the presenc of bangladesh officials. and indeed a theft in which it is quite possible that our own nationals - and government employees may have played a major role, wittingly or unwittingly. this is what we need to fight against and put in place safeguards for.
so now the third issue. if this is the scenario, why are some of us still eg respected professor lala rukh at 44 (and also jaffy at 46 in true soap-box ranting mode) continuing to equate this situation to us imperialism, colonial art theft, sacking of baghdad museum. it seems that these grand anti-imperialist narratives must be proved true at whatever cost - even the loss of our artefacts. certainly today’s reports of a press conference indicate that - rather than action over this loss, it seems the focus is on i told you so type statements, without any analysis that what has happened is not in fact what our esteemed artists predicted, (intent on the evil that would be visited upon our heritage by the ‘foreign gods’ on foreign soil)but rather something closer to home that requires us as in bangladeshis to take responsibility for what is done in our country by our own security agencies (as opposed to civilians) and to take action against that
December 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ayub Quadri weighs resignation as artefact scam deepens
Mon, Dec 24th, 2007 6:58 pm BdST
Dhaka, Dec 24 (bdnews24.com) —
In a news briefing Monday, Quadri said: “It’s me who must take the responsibility as the head of the cultural affairs ministry for the lost artefacts.”
Asked if he would resign by a bdnews24.com reporter, the adviser said: “What do you want?”
The reporter answered back with the same question: “What do you want?”
The adviser said: “I am thinking about the matter (resignation).”
The adviser said: “Personally I think the rest of the artefacts should not be sent off until the issue is settled.”
Deputy police commissioner for Uttara zone Khondakar Rafiqul Islam told bdnews24.com Monday that another suspect, a Biman Bangladesh Airlines employee, was arrested in Bhola Sunday night.
Among the 11 arrested Sunday, two Ansar members were released after interrogation and the number of arrestees stood at 10.
Rafiqul said Biman employee Shankar Chandra Dey was arrested in Bhola Sunday night and had been brought to Dhaka.
He also said an intensive search in the Cargo Village failed to find the carton.
On the status of the investigation, Rafiqul said, “There has been no success until now. The Police Headquarters have sent a message to the Interpol.”
In the case filed with Airport Police Station by director general of Bangladesh National Museum Samar Chandra Paul, Shankar and nine others detained Sunday have been shown arrested.
The arrestees are members of Air France Cargo, Voyager Airlines and Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh (CAAB).
They are Jamiul Abedin (loader), Masud Rana Saiful (loading supervisor), Abu Bakar (assistant loader), Afsar (Biman security), Abul Hossain (ground support equipment officer), Md Al Momin (Voyager Airlines staff), Shahjahan Ali (loader, operation department), Shariful Islam Manik (Voyager Airlines staff) Billal Hossain (loader) and Shankar.
The two Ansar members who have been released are Md Sobhan and Mizanur Rahman.
Indian customs officials seized four Vishnu statues from a van on the border with Nepal, but the authorities did not find links between the two incidents.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Rashed #51 - “do we believe that the bangladesh govt or the french actively took part in this theft … or should we be asking who were the people who wanted this stopped from the outset”
———–
There could be MANY possible culprits who would have the motive to steal them.
But THAT exactly is the problem. If the project (BY FRANCE and BD), was planned to take these treasures out of BD and return them back SECURELY, in original condition, then why did the security lack?
Knowing that BD is a questionable reliability zone, and adding the HIGH PROFILE interest on these items, there should have been an iron-clad 200% security applied on them.
Also, failure of the authority to secure them against ALL possible threats, underlines the following, to list a few:
1. If high-profile items are stolen this way, we must ponder how badly the less-visible items are being ransacked. (and by whom)
2. Laws for the protection of our cultural assets needs to be reviewed seriously, and more SEVERE legal action needed against smugglers, poachers and traffickers.
3. Cataloging, museum-ing, and recording of ALL national relics need to be taken in a larger scale, inside Bangladesh, and not relied upon other countries.
4. More national funds, training, exhibitions and awareness are needed INSIDE BD, to keep people informed of national heritage.
5. Intl conventions with UNESCO, etc need to be more aggressively joined, and like Egypt, ways of returning stolen relics BACK TO Bangladesh needs to be reviewed.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:05 am
[...] Voices has a brilliant post called “Tintin in Bengal or Musée Guimet controversy” detailing the whole episode with a lots of links to other blogs, pro-contra views, protests, [...]
December 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Bangladesh cancels French museum show after theft of rare artefacts 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Bangladesh cancelled plans to send rare artefacts to Paris for a museum exhibition next year after two ancient statues of a Hindu deity were stolen en route to France.
The 1,500-year-old rare terracotta statues of the Hindu god Vishnu disappeared from Zia International Airport in Dhaka on Saturday just hours before they were to be flown to the French capital.
The cabinet decided at a special meeting Tuesday to cancel the exhibition in light of the apparent theft, a government statement said.
“The Guiment Museum would be informed regretfully that it would not be possible to go ahead with holding the exhibition of the items as planned,” it said.
The statues were among 188 rare cultural items being sent to the Guimet Museum in the French capital for a major international exhibition on Bangladesh’s history and culture.
The first consignment of 42 items was sent to Paris on December 1.
Police also launched a nationwide hunt and sought help from Interpol to retrieve the stolen relics after detaining 15 people in connection with the case, he added.
The rare statues represent a deity known as the preserver of the universe. They were among the items selected from five state-run museums over opposition by some local art curators after an agreement between the French embassy and the government’s cultural affairs ministry.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
December 25th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
PLEASE SEE THIS NEWS ITEM AT ‘AMADER SHOMOY’:
http://www.amadershomoy.com/online/news.php?id=294&sys=1
December 28th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Rumors and unsupported reports are spreading that Guimet are planning to KEEP the first lot of statues, on grounds of Bangladesh not fulfilling the contracts.
Also that those statues will be sold at 450 Million Euros, and replicas will be returned to BD and kept in the museum. Museum earns millions on visitors fees daily, plus catalogs and shows.
While some of these reports MAY be rumors, there are also many evidence of similar incidents.
Bangladesh authorities need to be FORCEFUL that if Guimet is a State Museum, then the issue must be dealt with the French Govt, and not just Guimet. It is sad if any nation wants to hang diplomatic relations, in exchange for our national heritage.
We must realize that the original value of our heritage can have no price tag - and this MUST be communicated with the Govt of France.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
ZIA-based smuggling ring destroyed stolen artefacts
Claims Rab after arrest of 10 more but fails to recover remains in daylong search; motive still unexplained
Julfikar Ali Manik and Pinaki Roy
Rapid Action Battalion personnel with the help of Dhaka City Corporation workers search for the remains of the two stolen Vishnu statues at a garbage-dumping site in Amin Bazar on the outskirts of the capital yesterday. Photo: STAR
After five days of artefact theft from Zia International Airport (ZIA), investigators yesterday said a ring of smugglers based at the airport destroyed the precious archaeological masterpieces and dumped them in a dustbin in Uttara.
The revelation was stunning although the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) could not recover the broken pieces of the stolen statues even after conducting massive raids in different areas following confessional statements of the arrested suspects.
Rab officials raided dumping grounds, including those at Uttara, Jatrabari, Aminbazar and Savar, and thought to have found some pieces from two dumping grounds in Aminbazar and Savar. The National Museum authorities, however, said those do not match the stolen artefacts–a statue and a bust of Vishnu.
The investigators could not also determine the motive behind the theft and destruction of the artefacts. But the police said it was learnt from the confessional statement that the leader of the smuggler group has links to an Islamic organisation.
They are presently on a drive to capture the leader of the “Abbas-Nasir” ring, which is involved with the whole incident.
Both Abbas and Nasir are still absconding. The Rab raided Abbas’ residence but failed to find him or learn his whereabouts.
Meanwhile, the president accepted the resignation letter of Ayub Quadri, who stepped down as the cultural and education adviser on Wednesday amid uproar over artefact theft.
Rab sources said the Abbas-Nasir group based at ZIA conducted the theft through a few of its members with the help of some civil aviation staff and drivers.
The two 1,500-year-old terracotta statues bound for an exhibition at the Guimet Museum in Paris were stolen while in the custody of Air France at ZIA on December 22.
The statues from the Gupta era had been displayed at the National Museum since they were discovered at Mahasthangarh in Bogra.
Besides arresting 15 persons immediately after the incident, the Rab arrested 10 more people, including a former MP and a former deputy secretary, during the last 24 hours.
In primary interrogation, the arrested confessed to their involvement with the theft and gave details of how they carried out the shameful act starting from stealing the precious statues to dumping them after destroying, a Rab official said.
Rab sources said five of the arrested were involved with stealing the statues from the airport and they took the artefacts to Abbas’ house at 51/E, Road-7B in sector-3 in Uttara on December 22 morning. The culprits used a vehicle for carrying the stolen statues from the airport.
The five include smuggler ring members and some airport staff including a driver of the Civil Aviation Authority. A Rab investigator said the smugglers enjoy regular free access to the highly secured cargo terminal area.
When the stolen artefacts were landed at the car park of Abbas’ multi-storey residence, Abbas and three to four more identified persons were present there.
The priceless national properties were destroyed between 10:00am and 1:00pm upon Abbas’ orders, an interrogator quoted from the confessional statement of Abbas’ arrested house cleaner who was involved with the act.
Those who witnessed the heinous crime include arrested former MP Anwara Begum Putul, who owns three flats in the same apartment house, Rab said.
Rab Additional Director General Colonel Gulzar Uddin Ahmed told The Daily Star last evening, “The motive behind stealing and destroying the artefacts will be revealed once Abbas is arrested.”
The investigation officer of the case produced those who confessed to their involvement with the heinous act before a Dhaka court last evening, he added.
Uttara Zone Deputy Commissioner of Police Khandaker Rafiqul Islam told The Daily Star, “A man named Abbas implemented the whole plan of stealing and destroying the artefacts. Interrogation has revealed that Abbas is involved with an Islamic organisation.”
Andre Chenue, the consignee of the artefacts from Paris, nominated the Home Bound Bangladesh to send the artefacts by Air France.
The name of Home Bound Bangladesh was found as the sender agent on the receipt of Association of Cargo Agents of Bangladesh although its officials repeatedly told The Daily Star that they did not book any cargo flight of Air France.
The consignee had instructed Home Bound to send the artefacts as “general cargo” instead of “valuable cargo”, which is sheer negligence towards the country’s national properties.
According to the agreement signed between France and Bangladesh, “The Borrower ensures the security of the artefacts in accordance with the security standards applicable to French Museum. The Borrower guarantees to the Lender that the loaned works are under continuous and vigilant protection.”
Our court correspondent reports: The 10 arrested persons were produced before the Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court yesterday and seven of them were taken for recording judicial statements.
They are Lutfor Rahman, Monir Hossain, Nurul Islam Nuru, Mohammad Uzzal Hossain, Amir Hamza, Nikhil Chandra and Abdul Hamid.
The three others are Anwara Begum, former deputy secretary SM Mizanur Rahman and Moksed Ali.
The police prayed for 10 days’ remand for Anwara and Mizanur. The magistrate fixed Sunday for hearing on the prayer and sent the two to jail.
The magistrate also ordered to send Moksed to jail as the police did not pray for any remand for him.
after :
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=16810
December 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Did you folks check out Musée Guimet’s website?
here’s the link… http://www.museeguimet.fr/-English-
The reason I’m bringing it up is, because, I was just going through this page from that site which refers to the canceled exhibition of the artifacts, and I literally choked when I read these lines: “As a matter of fact, one of the characteristics of this heritage is that a lot of the pieces are well documented and enable us to situate the same in their precise historical and artistic context.”
here’s the link to it:
http://www.museeguimet.fr/Masterpieces-of-Gange-delta
(I’m quoting from the end of the article… from the last paragraph…)
I believe you folks all know what exactly strikes a chord from that quote… moving on. As per the site (same page…) “The lenders are all government institutions:
- The Bangladesh National Museum at Dhaka, under the Ministry of Culture
- The site museums under the directorate of Archaeology and thus the Ministry of Culture.
- Mahasthan Archaeological Museum
- Mainamati Archaeological Museum
- Paharpur Archaeological Museum”…
I just checked out the list of artifacts… … & I’m wondering exactly when and where were the stuffs from Mahasthan Archaeological Museum, Mainamati Archaeological Museum and Paharpur Archaeological Museum cataloged, AND brought to join the cargo?
Question Number two… Musée Guimet states that “… the directorate of Archaeology and thus the Ministry of Culture.” I have no idea how things work here in Bangladesh but I am up wondering how come the “directorate of Archaeology” never showed up (correct me if I’m wrong)… especially during the search for the “lost” items. Even forensic help could have been somewhat helpful!!
December 30th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Sidr: I guess that the “directorate of Archaeology” is responsible for the site museums (Paharpur, Mahasthan, Mainamati). The “lost” and destroyed images belonging to the National Museum, these are people of that institution who appeared on the mount of garbage.To my knowledge, all objects were brought to Dhaka in Summer (July - August). Whether they were already packed or not, I ignore it. They were catalogued from the very moment they were selected; the writing of all entries in the catalogue was done in France, minus the objects of the Islamic section described by Prof. Perween Hasan (Univ. of Dhaka). See my other comment to your own in “Pukur…”
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Another unfortunate victim of this fiasco is Mr Ruhul Amin, the Bangladesh ambassador to France. This respected and efficient career diplomat, who was in the middle of all the mess out of Bangladesh and rage out of French government suffered a massive brain hemorrhage yesterday. This happened after he came out of a meeting with French Government regarding return of the remaining artefacts. He is reported to be in irreversible coma now and life support is awaiting to be withdrawn arfter a nod from the family.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Bangladesh ambassador to France Ruhul Amin died in hospital after he suffered a brain haemorrhage, a foreign ministry official said Thursday. Amin was 48.
Amin suffered a brain haemorrhage Wednesday midnight (Bangladesh time) and was rushed to a clinic in Paris where doctors suggested transfer to another hospital for better treatment.
Amin was appointed to France as ambassador in June 2007.
Prior to his job in Paris, Amin, a 1984 batch career diplomat, was posted in Bahrain as Bangladesh envoy.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Ambassador Ruhul Amin dies in Paris.
The Ambassador suffered the stroke while he was returning to Bangladesh mission after a meeting at the French foreign ministry Wednesday afternoon.
Foreign ministry sources here said Ruhul Amin’s meeting with the officials of the French foreign ministry focussed on the issue of the Bangladesh artefacts.
After the meeting, Ambassador Ruhul Amin along with an officer returned to Bangladesh mission in a car, but the officer found him collapsed in the car. He was immediately rushed to a specialised hospital in Paris, the sources said.
They said the ambassador had been under stress over the artefacts issue for last few weeks.
Source: UNB
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
And the Ambassador was only 48!