Mon 3 Dec 2007
As the argument between the progressives over Guimet-gate intensifies, here is a counter argument that was sent anonymously. The fault line is clear. We leave it up to the readers to decide. Previous post: Tintin in Bengal
1) Why are there discrepancies in the lists?
Unfortunately the lists which have been scanned and put up were working documents and not the latest ones. One has to just flick through the Guimet Catalogue on the exhibit to see that each and every item is in there, accession number, origin, museum info and the rest. The Government has the latest list and should have handed it to the civil society group. It is a pity that it did not do so. One might raise doubts as to why one would want everything unpacked and rechecked just as the stuff was ready to leave – especially after it had passed the muster of the apex court. And particularly since the packing was done by expert packers (firm that has done this for many other intl exhibitions) but the unpacking would have been supervised by none other than the eminent ‘expert’ lawyers and army officers on the Committee (we dare to say probably unlikely to have any experience of working with artifacts in the past, though of course we may be wrong about their renaissance capacities)..
2) About bloggers writing under a pseudonym.
Two months ago when this controversy broke out and when the DGFI, at the airport, stopped the cargo from leaving, people weren’t really in a position to talk out. Shahidul’s important piece highlights how when he went to Guimet he wasn’t allowed to meet the curator. The author here tried to meet the curators of the Dhaka National Museum but was told that because of the DGFI coup and subsequent case filed, they were not in a position to discuss this matter. It most probably was the same at the Paris end. Shahidul subsequently accepted Vincent’s open invite when he came to Dhaka and the latter apologized for his inability to meet him in Paris. One would have wished that had Shahidul said he was from Drik (highly regarded the world over, especially in France) things would have been different. One can only speculate. Enough people on the protestors side know what kind of lies they have spread about others who have supported the exhibition but always said that it should go provided any major issues are clarified. The first lie is to omit the fact that they have also agreed with concerns like the insurance value. The second and bigger lie is simple character assassination eg people like Sultana Kamal have been publicly accused of being bootlickers of imperialists, and Prof. Anisuzzaman of being press-ganged into taking the view that the exhibition should go ahead. Under these circumstances it is less dangerous to write under a pseudonym.
3) About what BD is getting back in return..
well, not much if you take financial gains. One has to know that the insurance amount and company was chosen by Bandgladesh and France together – most people agree the insurance money offered is a joke.. and things could have been negotiated in favor of Bangladesh getting more advantages. Not many in Bangladesh know that India, for example, paid the transport of its priceless Gupta statues to be exhibited at the Petit Palais museum in Paris.. That Japan has paid for both transport and insurance for its exhibits to go to Guimet.. So Bangladesh got a better deal perhaps?
4) France has already reportedly spent 400,000 Euros on this exhibition and will most probably spend another 200,000 Euros on the whole transaction.. Which is why when the court gave clearance the Bangladeshi curators along with their French counterparts did not wait to get every cultural personalities’ green flag waving.. Let us remember that the court took a decision after a consideration of the issues and that the matter has been before the Courts for a long time (having been taken there at the very last minute just before the exhibition was to open). When the Louvre lends the Mona Lisa or any other work, it does not ask the French artists nor the Sorbonne academics to give their view point on the matter. It is up to the Bangladesh government, after the national Courts approved of the decision, to explain to the press and to those concerned what is going on and to be transparent about the whole deal. It’s interesting that the Bangladesh government went so far as to set up an ‘Expert’ Committee, presumably under pressure from the protestors - and even more interesting that the protestors have no comment about the (with one exception) signal lack of expertise on that body (one lawyer, one assistant professor who earlier insisted that replicas should be shown and also asked why the exhibition should be held for so long (4 months!) as it would deprive us of research opportunities and the chance to see our own things) and two - wait for it - army officers)..
5) Bangladesh is a free and sovereign nation
why all this condescending talk about candy being stolen from its mouth and it not knowing the rules of the game? The people involved from the Bangladesh end are all respected curators such as: Shafiqul Alam (Director of Archaeology of the Ministry of Culture), Abdul Khaleque (Regional Director of Archaeological sites of Mahasthangarh and Paharpur), Abdul Kuddus (Keeper of the Rajshahi Museum) and Rezaul Karim (Senior General Keeper of the Bangladesh National Museum) . Or would the protestors now like to impugn their honesty?
6) Why are people saying it took place in the middle of the night and that it was secretive?
Everyone can see from Shahidul Alam’s images that the trucks are being loaded in the day time. The trucks arrived around mid-day (and not early morning as implied) artifacts left the museum at 3 pm. Officials both at the museum and again at the airport checked each box in relation to the latest lists and the plane left the next morning at 9 am. Anyway, the timing wasn’t really chosen by the French but by the different moving and flight companies. But if a plane was to leave at midnight, what then? And why should the media have been contacted or why should a press conference be organised just to say they’re loading the stuff when the highest court itself has ruled in favor of our artifacts being allowed to travel and when there is no existing court or government order stopping them going (please please remember that the last time they were stopped not by ‘peoples power’ but by secret intelligence people effectively overruling the highest court in the country. So when Shahidul references the emergency and tries to compare the protestors in front of the museum running in different directions to the situation which has faced the professors now incarcerated for weeks forgive us if we find the comparison distasteful.
7) Colonial artifacts and their non-return.
This is really the crux of the matter and both Shahidul and Naeem have done a very good job to raise it (as earlier Prof Serajul Islam Chowdhury and others have done in the press). Indeed, we have to fight this one tooth and nail and get back our booty from their loot. This is a very serious issue and one which most Euro-American museums with a colonial background will have to sooner or later face. It’s great to see Bangladesh leading in this domain but Bangladeshis could perhaps focus their sights on museums like the V&A which have extensive collections from this region. But isn’t this a confusion of issues? And priorities? Are these writers trying to divert attention from the main issue? Because the current problem is not with what Guimet may have from past decades - we can fight about that and should. But it’s about a claim that the objects being taken now will necessarily be ‘kept back’ ’stolen’ (cries of ‘chor’ ‘chor’) by the Guimet and by implication the French Government now - even in the context of an inter museum/inter-state agreement! And if Bangladesh does take it upon itself to raise this with Guimet then shouldn’t it first return to Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran and India the artifacts the Dhaka National museum holds of those countries? And especially return to India (to the city of Mysore to be more precise) Tipu Sultan’s sword – at least the one that lies in Dhaka’s national museum.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Concerning point 3 (Gupta exhibition from India): the Indian part wrote also the entries in the catalogue, and the exhibition was offered by the Indian organisers(which organized the exhibition, i.d. made the selection of the objects) to a number of other European museums (to my knowledge, but there might be more: in Italy and in Germany) which refused because the asked price was too high. Thus, on the whole, the situations are completely different.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Dear anonymous, Thank you for the thoughtful post. I have responded below to key segments.
> One has to just flick through the Guimet Catalogue on the exhibit to see that each and every item is in there, accession number, origin, museum info and the rest.
If this is the case, I will stand corrected. But most of us don’t have access to the catalogue, and you’re in a privileged position to have had that access. People I know tried to get a copy from 2 sources (one was the artist Kalidas Karmakar, just returned from Paris) but everyone seems to be hoarding it. It’s a shame because if there is a desire to resolve the matter, I hope someone who is in possession of the catalogue will scan the relevant pages and put them up online. Perhaps you can do that, since it seems you want to clear the matter up (this is not a provocation, but a genuine request).
> The Government has the latest list and should have handed it to the civil society group. It is a pity that it did not do so.
Indeed it is a pity. But you can understand why, in the absence of such steps from the government, the civil society group had no option but to rely on the other documents they had—on which the accession numbers are missing in certain places. In other words, you cannot impugn the motives of the protesters for not knowing things that were kept from them (even if that happened through incompetence).
>One might raise doubts as to why one would want everything unpacked and rechecked just as the stuff was ready to leave – especially after it had passed the muster of the apex court.
Presumably because there is fear that artefacts have already been stolen— by someone who had access while it is on the Bangladeshi side (let’s say for arguments sake that person could be Bangladeshi, French, Iraqi, or what have you) —and the French loan fiasco will be used to cover that up.
>And particularly since the packing was done by expert packers (firm that has done this for many other intl exhibitions)
But how can people be expected to know that they are expert packers and have done many international exhibits, when up to today the government has not announced the name of the packing company (GOB press conference today could not tell the name of the packer)? Again, the packing company name may have not been announced through incompetence. You have access to information that has reassured you about your concerns, but hopefully you see that information has not been made public to the concerned parties.
> Enough people on the protestors side know what kind of lies they have spread about others who have supported the exhibition but always said that it should go provided any major issues are clarified.
This paragraph of yours is open to misinterpretation. Since your blog post is titled “Asterix and the Big Fight”, as (presumably) a counter-point to my blog post title “Tintin in Bengal”, your phrase “people on the protestors side know what kind of lies they have spread..” can be read to mean that I am one of the people who has been doing such. But as you know very well, I have never said anything against any person supporting the exhibition. My post focused on the French role, cultural issues, and I don’t recall there being a single word about people who supported the exhibition. Furthermore I don’t understand why you are bringing up Sultana Kamal or Prof. Anisuzzaman into this– no blogger has posted a single word about them on either drishtipat.org or shahidul.wordpress. If you have heard rumors about things said about Sk/A on the open market, e.g., Dhaka gibbot-fests and chatter-clubs, you can’t insinuate that into this blog to try to slander all of us by association.
>Under these circumstances it is less dangerous to write under a pseudonym.
I respect your need to use a pseudonym. We both know that we share a love for the same comics, ‘nuff said.
> One has to know that the insurance amount and company was chosen by Bandgladesh and France together
Agreed. And I made it clear in my post that it is our naivette that led to us accepting such a low insurance value.
>most people agree the insurance money offered is a joke
Actually, at the beginning this was not unanimous. People agreed to this mostly after protesters started showing other benchmarks.
>Not many in Bangladesh know that India, for example, paid the transport of its priceless Gupta statues to be exhibited at the Petit Palais museum in Paris.
But there are also counter-examples of country collections being lent out to European museums in exchange for monthly fees in the range of multi-million dollars.
> Let us remember that the court took a decision after a consideration of the issues and that the matter has been before the Courts for a long time (having been taken there at the very last minute just before the exhibition was to open).
I am confused here (not being sarcastic). The court decision was taken on Thursday, as far as I know. What about the GOB deadline of January 15th to respond to the fact-finding committee’s inquiries? Since the court decision (actually I think they voided the case, although not clear about the technicalities) came before the Jan 15th deadline, there is a clash of dates. Which takes precedence, the committee’s prerogative to get answers to all it’s questions from GOB, or the court decision? Legally of course the court takes precedence, but this is also an emotional, sensitive debate. The sensible thing would have been to ask GOB to immediately respond to committee’s questions, in light of the court’s decision and then make the move to ship the artefacts abroad if those questions are satisfactorily answered.
> It is up to the Bangladesh government, after the national Courts approved of the decision, to explain to the press and to those concerned what is going on and to be transparent about the whole deal.
No, I think it is both GOB and Musee Guimet’s role, as well as any organizing committee, to explain the transparency of the loan and resolve any issues.
>the protestors have no comment about the (with one exception) signal lack of expertise on that body
I don’t know about the composition of the committee, it would be helpful to have facts on this.
>Bangladesh is a free and sovereign nation - why all this condescending talk about candy being stolen from its mouth and it not knowing the rules of the game?
Bangladesh is a free and sovereign nation that has officials, some of whom do not always know the rules of the game.
> The people involved from the Bangladesh end are all respected curators…Or would the protestors now like to impugn their honesty?
You are putting words into people’s mouths and the result is an indirect slander similar to what you earlier criticized the protesters for. I haven’t heard anyone impugning the honesty of the people you mentioned (at least I am not doing so). Even honest people, with good intentions, can sign off on a loan agreement that is not a fair deal for Bangladesh, due to inexperience and negotiating from a position of weakness.
> The trucks arrived around mid-day (and not early morning as implied) artifacts left the museum at 3 pm.
Shahidul’s use of “night” is a metaphor as pointed out elsewhere. Regarding dawn vs mid-day, even hyperbole should not distract from the core issue– cultural lending in unequal positions of power, which you get to in point # 7.
> Colonial artifacts and their non-return. This is really the crux of the matter and both Shahidul and Naeem have done a very good job to raise it (as earlier Prof Serajul Islam Chowdhury and others have done in the press)….It’s great to see Bangladesh leading in this domain but Bangladeshis could perhaps focus their sights on museums like the V&A which have extensive collections from this region.
I agree that V&A and others are also targets for this debate. 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. 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, only 20 catalogues, etc etc. It is much harder to crystallize the issue when talking about a museum in London that most have never visited (yes I know most, except perhaps Shahidul, have not visited the Guimet either), and 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 the 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.
>But isn’t this a confusion of issues? And priorities?
Not necessarily because the past is prologue to the present, and those working in these areas may not get another chance to galvanize national attention around the issue of stolen art.
>Are these writers trying to divert attention from the main issue?
That’s an insinuation about the writers’ motives, and again the indirect slander you spoke against earlier.
>a claim that the objects being taken now will necessarily be ‘kept back’ ’stolen’
You are conflating two things. The concerns about robbery are not directed towards the Guimet (at least my concerns are not). Sane thinking people are not worried that the Guimet itself will steal or keep the artifacts (so the Dhaka French Embassy can stop getting its knickers in a twist). The issue here is about art robbery which is, as per my footnotes, 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) that I have heard reported seems quite small—naturally concern comes up as to whether adequate security can be provided for the show.
b. This is where the insurance value also comes up. If a 100 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 quite clearly.
We may disagree on some points and agree on others. I thank you for choosing to engage on the issues—the voice of people supporting the exhibition was missing from the blog and made our discussion a one-sided enterprise. At least we are talking and not shouting. Unfortunately, I do not know if the actual ground debates between the two sides (outside the rarefied confines of an English language blog) can happen as amicably. Emotions are too high at this point, and positions are hardening further. But let us see what the next few days bring.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
The above is a very interesting letter, a detailed exposition of the position and arguments of the Guimet Museum’s local cheerleaders. It is a document of utmost importance, and it will take time to absorb and answer them. However, it does deserve at least a preliminary response. Many thanks to the writer of this letter.
1. Who, by the way, has chosen to remain anonymous, as the moderator has noted. Yet point number 2 made by Mr./Ms. Anon is that bloggers on the ‘other’ side are writing under pseudonyms. So is this the proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black? In the same para there is raised the issue of ‘character assassination’ - and yes, tempers have flared, and things are being said that the speakers would probably not have said if emotions did not run high, but one thing is sure: The anti-exhibition group have been labelled as xenophobic, fundamentalists and most insultingly, as Taliban, as nativists who are opposed to an international exhibition that will presumably wipe out in a single stroke all the ‘negative’ images of Bangladesh back from our one-party BAKSAL days, some of whose architects are today’s fervent democrats. It is all the more insulting when one looks at the distinguished range of people opposing the show, which includes noted artist Rafiqunnabi, architect Mr. Wares, secular humanist Kabir Chowdhury, distinguished English literature professor Khan Sarwar Morshed, art historian Borhanuddin Khan Jahangir (I could go on and on), and a host of other people with an astonishing diversity in age, profession and ideology, but firmly united in the belief that Guimet should not be able to pull off this entirely on their own terms. I am therefore forced to ask: who is doing the worse name-calling, who is impugning names and blatantly committing character assassinations - of people with notable roles in the Language Movement and later - with an uncontrolled tongue?
2. A ‘DGFI coup’ is the word being used. Really? There was an intervention by them, true, but the point is whether the intervention was legal or not. If they had the right to stop the shipment, then fine. It was also simply a tactic used by the anti-exhibition movement in return for the tactics of intervention used by the Guimet local agents, whose efforts to just pack the things and hand it over to the French as fast as possible are obvious. Imagine the power of this group, doing it in the teeth of such popular opposition, the red telephone connections. They bulldozed over everything. And to use this terminology - ‘coup’ - to compare it to Shahidul Alam’s efforts to meet with the French curator in Paris is shameful, and detracts from the seriousness of this document. Words matter, and whoever is the mind who drafted this document knows it. We too know it, and we will use it if the need arises. If she or he wants to play that game, then let us suspend some basic rules for a bare-knuckle pit fight.
3. It is interesting to note the continued use of the word ‘government’ - as in Bangladesh government negotiations with the French government. It is deliberately used to give a cover of legitimacy to a transaction whose transparency and public accountability will remain a milestone of lobbying power and deception. The French government was, and continues to be, despite the despicable anti-immigration attitudes of Sarkozy, an elected government. Ours, on the other hand, was, as the author of this document must perfectly be aware, a despicable theftocracy run by, for and of Hawa Bhaban, which is why its leadership is currently either on the run, or jailed, or under indictments of various sorts, along with their wives, daughters and sons. The basis of their current fate is their complete and comprehensive selling out of national interests in every sector, from gas to energy, from deals attempted with Asia Energy to offshore oil, complete with a rigged parliament, and a highly sophisticated system of bureaucratic placement in key positions. Is this the government which I now should accept unquestioningly and unconditionally as the one that fully protected the, my, our, national interest in a deal with a museum whose dark side continues to be the subject of numerous articles? Still, never mind Guimet’s reputation, never mind Western art theft from the Third World having been perfected through centuries of theft, never mind the nonsigning of UNESCO declarations or conventions, shouldn’t the fact that this government and its minions conducted negotiations on our behalf (and every day we see in our newspapers what a fine job they did, accepting limos from Niko, for example) raise a red flag? Shouldn’t this deal be subject to the same slow scrupulous scrutiny given to other deals negotiated by the the previous ‘government’, and not summarily dispensed with by forming a review committee only to whitewash the transfer? And whose members, having been duped, now appear with pained expressions on their faces on our television sets. Why is this deal by the previous Jamaat-coalition government granted this immunity? Under which convention, under which unwritten law?
4. The author has made much of ‘Theft in the middle of the night’ sentence. But here it is being used as a metaphor, not to be taken literally. Metaphors are an essential part of language. The author of this document again is using wordplay - of course we all see the photos taken by Dr. Shahidul Alam, of course we see the images of theft being conducted in broad daylight. The metaphor refers to the process (or lack of it) of the transfer, the overriding of concerns expressed by citizens, distinguished and general alike, to the tears welling up in the eyes of student and teachers of the Fine Arts Institute as those trucks steamed out of the jadughor gates, driven by grinning guards, guarded by convoys of police, watched from a distance by RAB vehicles, surrounded by plainclothes cops - you see the power of the state machinery employed, the full force of it, and against which were arrayed saris and t-shirts. And tears and anger. And all the while a black fat cat’s big black car from the French embassy with yellow diplomatic plates was parked in front of the museum building. The French should remember that victory today may be temporary, and that in the long run they may have just laid the seeds for another Dienbenphu, when General Giap ringed their army camp with artillery and pounded them out of Vietnam in 1954.
Thank you all very much. I am sure other points will duly be answered by Dr. Shahidul Alam, somebody who is in more international photography and art juries, has curated, exhibited and judged in more international museums than Author Anon can possibly even ‘catalogue’ in a year’s time.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
[...] Anonymous responds Asterix & The Big Fight] Tintin in Bengal, or Musee Guimet Controversy Naeem Mohaiemen The two month controversy simmering [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I was reading about this controversy with immense interest. I read Mr. Shahidul Alam’s post and Naeem’s subsequent post. I have also read Rumi’s and Rezwan’s post. I was in two minds but I could sense that something smelled.
After reading this anonymous post, the smell is even stronger. The arrogance of tone in this post (similar to the tone emanating from the French Embassy) has shown me which side has the better of the argument. That side is with Naeem and Shahidul Alam.
There is a tone of disdain in this post that is simply impossible to overlook.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Mash, I don’t think you should use “tone” as the main reason to reach your judgments. I also had a “tone” when I initially posted on Friday– my emotions were running high. Later I had the chance to think it through, and revised my post to take a more “balanced tone”. But whatever the tone may be, in the end, we should debate the facts of the matter, and both side’s facts should be taken into account.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Naeem, it very difficult to separate the content of this post from the tone of this post. There was an awful lot of finger pointing in this post. Oddly we are told the finger that is doing the pointing wishes to remain anonymous for fear of finger pointing.
I am comfortable with the judgment I’ve reached about this post. It also seems to me that the larger controversy is very much about tone. Museum transfers are done all the time all over the world. However, the way in which this transfer was done seems to really be the issue. It appears to have ignored the sensibilities of the stakeholders - that is, the people of Bangladesh. This post, thanks largely to its tone, largely captures that callous attitude that has precipitated this controversy.
I guess in that sense this post has crystallized the issue - it certainly has done so in my mind.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:00 am
i am sorry, mash, i disagree entirely. i find the above post by far the most reasonable and well reasoned of everything i have read on the debate thus far. also the best informed. and the post constantly tries to find common ground, accepts the mistakes and missteps that were made, and is constantly conciliatory in both tone and approach. but i guess each person will react to it as he or she finds it, and that this is ultimately a subjective judgement.
one thing, though, please do not conflate the anti- side and the ‘expert committee’ with the bangladesh people. the anti- side are self-appointed and do not necessarily represent anyone other than themselves , so to say that the sensibilities of the bangladeshi people have been ignored is, i think, unfair. also, if you were here in dhaka you would understand that the finger-pointing and slander and nastiness has been pretty much 95%-5% against those supporting the exhibit and that when it comes to questions of tone that the tone on the other side has been far more vituperative (naeem, it would be nice if you were to acknowledge this, too).
i personally did not find either naeem’s or shahidul’s posts convincing, nor do i find naeem’s rebuttal persuasive in the slightest.
for instance, it is simply not good enough to say that he didn’t know who was on the ‘expert committee’ — if one is writing about this it behooves one to conduct this kind of due diligence. there seems to be an awful lot of certainty about issues naeem now admits he is still finding out about.
and, naeem, i really dont think you can complain about indirect slander, given what has been flying through the air aimed at the pro- side who have been accused of being everything from a dark elitist conspiracy to thieves to imperial lackeys.
frankly, the counter accusation of solipsism, hysteria, and xenophobia is mild in comparison, and, what is more, borne out by the facts and supported by the arguments made by the anti- side themselves.
the corner-stone of the argument is that the musee guimet and the french (and the west in general) cannot be trusted and that this is merely a continuation of the centuries long oppression and exploitation we have suffered at the hands of imperialists. naeem, you say the past is prologue, but this is tendentious in the extreme. you are conflating two issues when you bring up western intransigence when it comes to ancient items looted during colonial times. it really is not relevent to today’s debate, but to use it as a pillar of your argument frames the issue, in my opinion, in an unhelpful and tendentious way. just look at comment three which brings up dien bien phu, of all things, to see how the issue is being framed and understood. i mean, shouldnt we all take a deep breath and try to discuss the issue calmly and rationally and based on fact rather than emotion alone?
if the premise is that we look at everything through the prism of colonial history and geo-politics, then by definition the anti- side wins, regardless of whether this particular exhibition might be a good idea and have been conceived in good faith.
and i’m sorry, but if emotions are running too high to have a reasoned debate, then the fault lies on the anti- side who have from day one raised the spectre of dark conspiracies of the elite and theft and colonialism and imperialism and ‘pukur churi’ and ‘theft in the middle of the night’ to whip up a frenzy and to demonize and character assassinate the other side. this has been their deliberate modus operandi, and there is no getting away from it.
and the truth of the matter is that people are making their judgements based largely on the personalities involved (se e.g. comment three here and also your original post), many of whom are not experts on this issue at all and may not even be particularly knowledgeable about the issues at hand. it may be true that the pro- side are not necessarily members in good standing in the artistic/intellectual community, but this does not mean that they are thieves or that they are wrong in this case, nor does it justify the name calling and character assassination they have had to suffer.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I received this response to my questions by email from “rational_skeptic” who asked that I post it on their behalf:
Naeem:> I hope someone who is in possession of the catalogue will scan the relevant pages and put them up online.
Skeptic: May I suggest that you write to the guimet asking formally for a catalogue? Or if the Exhibitin is opening maybe it can be purchased in paris. There are artists there like shahabuddin and anwar hossain who could do this?
>NM: you cannot impugn the motives of the protesters for not knowing things that were kept from them (even if that happened through incompetence).
Skeptic: I don’t impugn their motives, but only their modes of action. Before taking to streets in protest or denouncing people as thieves, it may be in order to simply ask for papers. Was any such formal request made at any point (including in the case - from what I have read in the press it does not seem to have been)
>Naeem:Presumably because there is fear that artefacts have already been stolen— by someone who had access while it is on the Bangladeshi side (let’s say for arguments sake that person could be Bangladeshi, French, Iraqi, or what have you) —and the French loan fiasco will be used to cover that up.
Skeptic: Should protestors not be concerned about why courtesty DGFI intervention these goods have been stuck in boxes for such a long period at all. And perhaps we should ask who would want to pack and recheck? The ‘expert’ committee? Who are the experts on this committee? Could they kindly provide their cvs so that we could have information on that also?
>Naeem:You have access to information that has reassured you about your concerns, but hopefully you see that information has not been made public to the concerned parties.
Skeptic: This could again be verified I imagine by a letter to the govt and to the french embassy? I recall reading in the French press information that the name had been given.
> Since your blog post is titled “Asterix and the Big Fight”, as (presumably) a counter-point to my blog post title “Tintin in Bengal”, your phrase “people on the protestors side know what kind of lies they have spread..” can be read to mean that I am one of the people who has been doing such. But as you know very well, I have never said anything against any person supporting the exhibition. My post focused on the French role, cultural issues, and I don’t recall there being a single word about people who supported the exhibition.
Skeptic: You have not said anything but please see the comments on DP after your Tintin piece, and please see the piece by Shahidul on jigsaw puzzle which he or someone has sent me by email which is full of vague personal allegations against individuals.
>Naeem: I respect your need to use a pseudonym
Skeptic: I think it is a pity that people are not writing under their own names, but perhaps we should ask why the debate is being made so polarised and confrontational that this feeling is being generated?
>Naeem: But there are also counter-examples of country collections being lent out to European museums in exchange for monthly fees in the range of multi-million dollars.
Skeptic: But are we going to those other museums. So are we advocating we now cancel this and go to another museum . What about objections of some that our stuff simply should not go abroad. Too risky in planes, our stuff should stay with us etc etc.
>Naeem: I am confused here (not being sarcastic). The court decision was taken on Thursday, as far as I know. What about the GOB deadline of January 15th to respond to the fact-finding committee’s inquiries?
Skeptic: There are as far as I know two cases, one was filed by Shishir and co (and the great ‘dr’ yuri) before high court. They got a stay order for two months. Then govt went to appellate division (our highest court in the country) .the only argument put on behalf of shishir and co was that some dodgy guy would be accompanying the exhibits. There was no proof. Only some secret agency docs and newspapers. Govt showed names of persons going and explained that no such person going at all. Court at that point said no basis for stay order and withdrew it. But DGFI then intervened at the airport, over-ruling customs authorities who said that there was no objection. In the lower court some ex bureaucrats (who never explained what they did on their watch to recover casket, promote exhibitions or anything else) then filed another case. Court did not grant injunction or any order to stop objects. Don’t know what is court decison of Thursday but presume later order that this case has no basis.
So legally there is no bar.
Re committee. What is legal basis of committee. How was it established by whom and with what terms of reference. Why do protestors not question who are its members. What is their expertise. And what is the impartiality of this committee, let alone ability, on questions raised. The one person with actual expertise, a professor, has reportedly felt not strong enough to dissent though he is very unhappy with how things are being handled by the rest. Also you may ask what communications the cttee has had with the govt and the museum to date.
>Naeem: I think it is both GOB and Musee Guimet’s role, as well as any organizing committee, to explain the transparency of the loan and resolve any issues.
Skeptic: French govt really does not legally have obligations to us in banglaesh, it is the bangladesh govt which has, and since bd Govt’s obligation was to fix the insurance values, they have the most explaining to do.
>Naeem: I don’t know about the composition of the committee, it would be helpful to have facts on this.
Skeptic: Have mentioned above and it only needs a quick google search. Or just ask shishir etc.
>Naeem: Bangladesh is a free and sovereign nation that has officials, some of whom do not always know the rules of the game. I know personally I didn’t know many of the facts I absorbed through research over the last few weeks (and some of my understanding is still incomplete). But hopefully through this experience, we will all learn.
Skeptic: Is shouting ‘theif theif’ and provoking violence the best way to learn.
>Naeem: 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. 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, only 20 catalogues, etc etc. It is much harder to crystallize the issue when talking about a museum in London that most have never visited…Guimet is taking on the burden not only of its own history (especially the 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.
Skeptic: Am out of time and have to go, but they seem very differrent issues one a long struggle to demand return of artefacts which were taken in colonial times (and working out how and where well keep them and whether we can keep them safe) as opposed to a contempoary Inter museum inter state loan exhibit. Please ask others who are more removed from the scene for their views.
>Naeem: Sane thinking people are not worried that the Guimet itself will steal or keep the artifacts. The issue here is about art robbery which is, as per my footnotes, now the 4th largest form of crime in the world.
Skeptic: Where what kinds of museums, what kinds of objects.
>Naeem: concern comes up as to whether adequate security can be provided for the show.
Skeptic: Simple to ask in writing?
>Naeem: This is where the insurance value also comes up. If a 100 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 quite clearly.
Skeptic: What is the risk of theft?
>Naeem: We may disagree on some points and agree on others. I thank you for choosing to engage on the issues—the voice of people supporting the exhibition was missing from the blog and made our discussion a one-sided enterprise.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Press statement handed out today to journalists by Jean Romnicianu, Deputy Head of Mission, French Embassy:
French Response
December 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Salam to all.
Please do not give me grief with the pseudonym or whatever argument earlier. I have been using the net name “pikaname” for more than a decade now, from before the term “blog” came into popular circulation. Having said that, I am very new to blogging. Still cannot claim myself to be a blogger.
Now, my casual style of commenting here and my lack of eloquence does not mean what I am saying is of no importance… right?!
_____________________________________
> Since your blog post is titled “Asterix and the Big Fight”, as (presumably) a counter-point to my blog post title “Tintin in Bengal”, your phrase “people on the protestors side know what kind of lies they have spread..” can be read to mean that I am one of the people who has been doing such. But as you know very well, I have never said anything against any person supporting the exhibition. My post focused on the French role, cultural issues, and I don’t recall there being a single word about people who supported the exhibition.
Skeptic: You have not said anything but please see the comments on DP after your Tintin piece, and please see the piece by Shahidul on jigsaw puzzle which he or someone has sent me by email which is full of vague personal allegations against individuals.
___________________________________
Dear Skeptic,
Have you taken offence from my comment in another post (I’m only guessing its mine you refer to). I will not appologise. The person I have spoken about knows who I am, and the blogger/admin knows my identity too. And I don’t think I have broken any DP rules by making any accusations. I merely was expressing disgust after having a realization, and sharing a personal experience here. Yes, very personal, and about a person very much supporting the exhibition, criticizing her attitude and lack of respect towards my culture and people. And I will be confrontational with you now… What seems to be the problem? Which part of my comment seemed like a lie to you? And how do you know that I am lying?
Now that I have admitted that those were emotions, lets drop these silly defences and counter attacks, yeah?!?!!!
I still have not made up my mind which side I am on. Heck, I don’t even know whether it is so important to take any sides? Can I not be an observer asking questions? I’m a Dhaka kid, and I grew up amongst bystanders having strong opinions. So, please allow me.
In another post by Naeem, I have found great interest, and would love it to have all this energy put into discussing real issues.
(excuse my lack of knowledge on text formatting and hyperlinking)
Naeem: ….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 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
On comics, I would prefer Asterix to Tintin any day, or am I missing the point altogether ?
Farhad
December 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I just got a copy of the Guimet catalogue. Will scan and post some images. But first wanted to reply to some of Skeptic’s points.
> Skeptic: I don’t impugn their motives, but only their modes of action. Before taking to streets in protest or denouncing people as thieves, it may be in order to simply ask for papers.
I believe that was the point of the lawsuit. The first time people took to the street, as far as I know, was Friday when the lawsuit had failed.
>Skeptic: Should protestors not be concerned about why courtesty DGFI intervention these goods have been stuck in boxes for such a long period at all.
The concern of theft prior to sending to France is prior to being put in boxes.
>Skeptic: This could again be verified I imagine by a letter to the govt and to the french embassy? I recall reading in the French press information that the name had been given.
At the GOB press conference, the name was not given. That’s all the information I have.
>Skeptic: You have not said anything but please see the comments on DP after your Tintin piece, and please see the piece by Shahidul on jigsaw puzzle which he or someone has sent me by email which is full of vague personal allegations against individuals.
I can take responsibility for my own blog post and my comments. I have not written anything about any individual supporting the loan on current conditions.
> Skeptic: I think it is a pity that people are not writing under their own names, but perhaps we should ask why the debate is being made so polarised and confrontational that this feeling is being generated?
A good question, but I also believe there are reasons outside of this particular debate that so many people use pseudonyms on dp these days.
>Skeptic: But are we going to those other museums. So are we advocating we now cancel this and go to another museum .
I think the more practical recommendation would be:
1. make full cataloguing, with accession numbers and photos, public on the internet (French Embassy referred to this)
2. have the insurance value re-evaluated by an international panel of experts
3. adjust upwards the budget to factor in the revised insurance value and security needs
4. delay the show opening until this happens, however also set a deadline of January 1st/15th (say) to complete all this and open the show
[Of course my saying this does not make it so, the letter from group of archaeological experts demands the show be completely cancelled]
>What about objections of some that our stuff simply should not go abroad. Too risky in planes, our stuff should stay with us etc etc.
Those are some people’s position, not mine. I have no issue with the items going abroad if the conditions are fulfilled.
>Skeptic: French govt really does not legally have obligations to us in banglaesh, it is the bangladesh govt which has, and since bd Govt’s obligation was to fix the insurance values, they have the most explaining to do.
The French government may not have a LEGAL obligation, but they have a non-legal obligation to communicate well and clear up issues.
To give one example, I just got in my hands a copy of the Guimet catalogue. I had to ask four different friends until finally getting a copy. If the French Embassy had released a set of copies and given them out to journalists/protesters, it may have helped their case.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Possibly the insurance amount was set so low because the government in their infinite wisdom decided to pay a low premium, a case of being penny wise pound foolish, all for the sake of the country, in good faith, and out of ‘childlike’ innocence, etc.
Suits the analogy of adult-child relationship between France and Bangladesh.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
To all of you, in particular #12 Naeem, the exhibition will open to the public on 26th december and run till 31st March (initial dates: 24th october-3rd march). See the Guimet website: http://www.museeguimet.fr/Masterpieces-of-Gange-delta.
All items are properly catalogued with inventory numbers, etc. Only item 79 is not clearly described: are all the folios shown in Paris or only some ? one manuscript has 191 folios, the other one 531 according to the text accompanying the pictures of five illuminated folios; however, nothing is said about the actual number of folios presented in the exhibition. Were all the folios photographed before leaving Rajshahi or Dhaka ? or could this happen in Paris ? or were only some folios photographed ? The same remark applies to entry 114, a Coran: no mention is made of the number of folios.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I just received a copy of the Guimet catalogue at 11 pm tonight. It is 300 pages long and a good publication. I have scanned some pages and uploaded them at the original post:
Tintin In Bengal
If the Embassy had given out copies of this catalogue to journalists & protesters, they could have helped their own cause. 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 4th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
i read the French response. (thanks #9) It address all of those childish fears and accusations that are floating around. I think if everyone reads and considers it, we can move on to more adult and pressing concerns.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Zafar, I commented on the tone of this post. From where I sit it comes across prettty strongly. I understand different people will read it differently. You are however right about me conflating two groups in my reference to “sensibilities” - it was sloppy and I perhaps should have been clearer.
Before my position is misinterpreted, I should say that I am not against museum transfers (it always nice to be able to go to your local museum to see art that has travelled from far flung places):) To me the issue of the transfer itself is secondary. What comes through, sitting here watching the controversy, is the venom. You may be right about the relative distribution of venom between the two sides. However, at least in print, from reading this post and the comments from the French Embassy I sense something akin to “Bangladesh ought to be grateful for this. It will help its image.” I think the conversation might have gone better if it went something like “We are grateful to have the opportunity to showcase Bangladesh’s treasures”. After all it is the art that is of more value than the building that wants to house it. Perhaps it started that way when this whole furor erupted, but it sure doesn’t look like that is where it is now.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
>Zafar wrote: naeem, i really dont think you can complain about indirect slander, given what has been flying through the air aimed at the pro- side who have been accused of being everything from a dark elitist conspiracy to thieves to imperial lackeys.
Zafar, none of the “[slander] aimed at the pro-side” came from me. My blog entry “Tintin In Bengal” was written Dec 1st, and revised Dec 4th. In the first version I took a more strident tone, in the revised version took a more balanced tone. This balanced tone came as a result of getting access to additional documents from both sides, which addressed some of my earlier concerns, and showed errors in my original blog post (which I rectified). Neither in the original post, nor in the revised version is there any personal slander (unless you think Tintin/Herge has been slandered, which I agree he has– and that slander was done lovingly towards my most cherished childhood icon).
>naeem, you say the past is prologue, but this is tendentious in the extreme. you are conflating two issues when you bring up western intransigence when it comes to ancient items looted during colonial times. it really is not relevent to today’s debate, but to use it as a pillar of your argument frames the issue, in my opinion, in an unhelpful and tendentious way.
Yes, the past is prologue. You are of course free to think it’s irrelevant and tendentious, I don’t.
>just look at comment three which brings up dien bien phu, of all things, to see how the issue is being framed and understood.
I thought the Dien Bien Phu comparison was ridiculous. But as you are well aware, I didn’t make that comment. Am I supposed to bear responsibility of “guilt by association” for every comment that is posted in response to my blog. Isn’t that the sort of “guilt by association” that you have complained about to me, in person, when it has been leveled against you, in different (non Guimet) contexts?
>shouldnt we all take a deep breath and try to discuss the issue calmly and rationally and based on fact rather than emotion alone?
Agreed, we should take a deep breath and discuss calmly. I should take a deep breath, so should you.
>if the premise is that we look at everything through the prism of colonial history and geo-politics
Not “everything”, the relevant things.
>the anti- side who have from day one raised the spectre of dark conspiracies of the elite and theft and colonialism and imperialism and ‘pukur churi’ and ‘theft in the middle of the night’ to whip up a frenzy and to demonize and character assassinate the other side.
Yes, some people have used those tactics, but I have not– so why are you using that issue to attack my comments. The only one of your list of issues that I have raised myself is colonialism and imperialism (I have raised other issues not in the previous paragraph, e.g, insurance value, risk of robbery, symbolic battles, small nation pride, undiplomatic handling by French embassy), and I stand by those points.
>many of whom are not experts on this issue at all and may not even be particularly knowledgeable about the issues at hand. it may be true that the pro- side are not necessarily members in good standing in the artistic/intellectual community, but this does not mean that they are thieves or that they are wrong in this case, nor does it justify the name calling and character assassination they have had to suffer.
There are expert & inexpert people on both the “pro” and “anti” side (even these labels are unhelpful). I agree that the rhetoric has become overheated to the point where dialogue between the active players doesn’t seem possible (you and I are both, in the end, commenting from the sidelines– which is all a blog in English, with it’s built-in select audience due to access/language, can be).
December 5th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Mash (and others), go to the following website, in particular slide 25 is enlightening, the exhibition is there advertised as contributing “to built a positive image of Bangladesh abroad” ! this was (still is ?) the official French version
http://www.ambafrance-bd.org/IMG/ppt/GUIMET_web.ppt
and a reply to it : http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=172547
December 5th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Zafar-
“the anti- side are self-appointed and do not necessarily represent anyone other than themselves ”
Ans:Zafar How can you reach so quickly on the conclusion like that? This is not my business even. Basically I am agreed with Mash that Museum transfer has no harm at all. But way the whole episode was going on is clearing indicating lack of Transparency.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
naeem, of course i am happy to stipulate that you personally have neither slandered nor libelled anyone in connection to this issue, or, indeed, any other.
i do not think that i suggested that, but if you feel there is any ambiguity in what i wrote, i am more than happy to clear up any confusion.
i agree that it would be unfair to damn you by association with the more intemperate and, indeed, slanderous elements within the anti- campaign.
however, i do also think that if you wish to disassociate yourself from such people that you shouldn’t write that ‘no sane’ person is arguing that the guimet and its co-conspirators in BD are guilty of/planning some kind of major art heist and that the issue is whether some other party might now steal the artefacts.
in fact, many people whom i presume (and i presume you agree) to be sane are arguing precisely that, and by saying no one is saying that you seem to be providing them with cover.
but to conclude: i agree, you have neither slandered nor libelled anyone.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
But why shouldn’t tempers get heated if even the possibility of a major heist appears? A protest movement by definition isn’t a stately affair run ceremoniously, it flares and subsides, it heats and cools. It faces a state apparatus and its cohorts without any countervailing force except numbers and loud voices. If it wasn’t for the protests and the heated tempers, the art objects would have just gone as planned by the French, uncatalogued properly and without a large slice of people knowing anything about it. And they would have been removed exactly as the French wanted it: oh so politely, nicely, decorously, without all this, tsk, tsk, ignorant third world rabid rabble rousing. But now our government, the authorities, a large segment of the newspaper-reading people all know a lot more about such transactions, and all such future transfers are going to undergo - hopefully - a far thorough scrutiny than they would have had all this not happened. This is a necessary education for us all. Parsing and slicing and dicing about fingerpointing and slander can go all night, and if a certain degree of it happened, the fact remains that it happened well and truly on both sides. Some did it decorously, and some did it not so decorously, but everybody did it, and are still doing it.
So there was dustup, so there was a ruckus, and given the value of the objects it was in a certain sense inevitable. And may keep on happening in the future. The story’s not over yet, it is ongoing. The objects may come back fine, but then the story may develop different legs. But anybody has to concede that even the possibility of a heist on such a scale is a very scary issue, and raises deeply felt emotions.
Why is everybody suddenly so very concerned about language and manners, and not about the fact that government had to be pressured into taking steps, into becoming aware of the possible implications of its move, and if one of the instruments was a bit of blog to-do, then so be it.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:15 am
First, I would like to thank Leila… thank you!
Here’s another personal experience…
Sept 2006 was when I first learnt about Sonar Bangla festival. Earlier that summer I helped (pro bono) Alliance Francaise de Dhaka organise a baul evening as part of Fête de la Musique celebrations. That evening I noticed the show being video graphed. This I had not been previously informed of, it was not part of the contract. To my enquiry I learnt that it was being done for a French gentleman who would be visiting Bangladesh soon, to select a group of baul performers for a show in Paris. This excited me and being reassured that it was not for commercial purpose, I allowed the video. I made a request to meet the Frenchman once he arrived.
He arrived a couple of months later and I was asked to meet him at Alliance Francaise. This was the first time I met Pierre-Alain Baud. With him was Magali Siaudeau, the Cultural Attaché of French Embassy. Together they explained Sonar Bangla festival to me. The festival would include Bangladeshi film, contemporary art, music, dance, etc. Fascinated, I offered to do everything to assist them. After our meeting I accompanied them to Short Film Forum office, at Shahbag, and heard them discuss with with my film-maker friends on how to select films for the festival.
The following month I helped them as a guide at the festival of Lalon Phokir in Chheuria, Kushtia. My interest was to assist the process of baul/phokir performers from my home town to go and perform in Paris. I was glad to be part of it, without a monetary interest, or requirement.
In March 2007 Pierre-Allain visited Bangladesh again and spent some more time with me at Jolchhobi Sadhu Shongo, a biennial congregation of sadhus/bauls/phokirs at the Fine Art Institute of Dhaka University.
In the following months Pierre-Allain and I maintained email communication. He wanted me to provide him with photographs of the performers. It should be mentioned here that I am a photographer by profession. As I asked for a budget, I was told that there was none. I sent the required photographs in April 2007, and left it with the organisers to decide how they would reward me.
Pierre-Allain wanted me to prepare passports of the performers, scan them and send them via email to him. Passports were ready except for one performer’s. Money was required to apply for. As I was working for free I was not in a position to invest, also I had no written contract with the organisers. Pierre-Allain later agreed to transfer money to me via Magali.
In Sept 2007 the artefacts case went to court, and this was the first time I became aware of it, after a whole year’s involvement. At around the same time Pierre-Allain wrote an email telling me that sending copies of the passports were taking too long, as a result the baul show of January 2008 has been cancelled. As a friend I asked Magali if the high court case and the delays were related to the cancellation of the baul show. She said they were not.
What happened to the rest of the Sonar Bangla festival? Is there a programme/brochure I can find somewhere? Are any of the other shows taking place, or have they all been cancelled?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Pikaname, go here
Indeed the Baul concert stays there as being cancelled.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Zafar-
“the anti- side are self-appointed and do not necessarily represent anyone other than themselves ”
Ans:Zafar How can you reach so quickly on the conclusion like that?
J2I: but this is simply a statement of fact! please note the word ‘necessarily.’ they certainly don’t represent me. and they don’t really represent anyone other than the anti- side, which is,what, a couple of hundred people? please note that the pro- side probably is only a couple of dozen people! this isn’t really an issue many people know much about and neither side is really representative of anyone other than themselves, in the final analysis. both are acting in what they perceive to be the county’s best interests, but i do not think that either side can claim to represent the bangladeshi people and their interests as a whole. i don’t think anyone can speak on behalf of the bangladeshi people as a whole on this issue. certainly no one has bothered asking what the general public wants or tried to inform/educate them about the issue, either (not that either is really necessarily possible).
that is all i was suggesting!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:10 am
The ten crates of artefact left the country while a public interest litigation case is pending with the District Judges Court, Dhaka. The Honourable Judge took time till 15th January 2008, wanting to see papers and documents before reaching a decision.
A revision application was filed with the High Court yesterday by petitioners, where a status quo has been declared. This means that the artefacts should remain where they are until 15th January 2008, when the District Judge’s court comes to a decision.
That means the 10 crates of objects’ status and location should should not change from the point of time status quo has been declared. Same goes for the further 13 crates remaining to be shipped.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
it is interesting to see how court orders are being a) not reported when they favour the artefacts going abroad (as in the supreme court order some weeks ago and b) being reported with a heavy spin and bias in order to seem as though they favour the artefacts not going.
pikaname’s last comment is very much in this trend. because to a more objective observer, the status quo order could also mean that the court refused to give a stay. a status quo means that there is no change in the present status. the present status of ten artefacts are that they are in france being made ready for exhibition. another ten are ready to be sent abroad and there is no order stopping them from going. in other words there is no restriction on what should happen to artefacts. in the interests of transparency perhaps pikaname would be kind enough to report the actual order of the court, and not the spin?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Look at ‘Tintin in Bengal’ for latest news.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 am
[...] Musee Guimet respond to protester charges. 3. Desh premik bonam..: The rhetoric heats up. Anyone supporting the show is “France er dalal”, anyone opposing the show is a patriot. A commenter dares point [...]
December 26th, 2007 at 7:54 am
The December 26 issues of Shomokal and Jugantor daily newspapers have published detailed news reports of the ‘government to government agreement’ concerning the Guimet Museum Ganges tamasha.
Part of the Jugantor report is as follows (and readers here must excuse my translation from Bangla to English): “Police sources inform us that the moment a section of the (Bangladeshi) intelligentsia protested against the sending of the artefacts, immediately an ex-advisor to the caretaker government and a well-known theater group actor held a press conference (in support of the sending of the artefacts)…Sources further tell us that a local cultural organization was given the contract to event manage the Shonar Bangla festival… Accompanying the December 1 first consignment of 45 artefacts were National Museum Keeper Dr. Rezaul Karim (History) and the regional director of the Bogra Mahastangar Museum Abdul Khaleque. The officials of the National Museum who were to take part in the exhibition would stay in France for six months with full costs of their stay borne by the museum plus a payment of additional per diem payment. A National Museum source said that each official was to receive 80 Euros (8000 Takas). Over the six-month period Guimet Museum was to pay each official a total of 14 lakh Takas.”
This is merely the tip of the iceberg, and these are the ‘fichka chores.” The big fish are elsewhere. And of course, all the payoffs are not merely monetary, but a cementing of a deeply beneficial, long-lasting relationship between colonial masters and their local underlings for decades to come for services rendered. That is the ‘invisible’ face of today’s neocolonialism. Real ‘agents’ take money in kind, not crude cash.
In a previous post I had quoted Watergate Deep Throat’s clue to reporters Woodward and Bernstein “Follow the money trail”, hard on whose heels came the obligatory chants from the pro-exhibition blog quarter about ‘personal attacks’ and ’slander’ and ‘libel.’
I would suggest they start suing Bengali newspapers for starters - they seem to have lawyers in their midst who displayed a great deal of know-how about fine legal claptrap. The Bengali journalists/media, unlike me, are not talking about neocolonialism and metropole-periphery connections in the abstract, but are freely naming names and tsk, tsk, how very rude, how very crude! actually pointing fingers. Big, hairy, knuckled ones!