Naeem Mohaiemen on Sun, 2 Dec 2007 01:56:51 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Tintin in Bengal, or Musee Guimet Controversy |
Tintin in Bengal, or Musee Guimet Controversy Naeem Mohaiemen The two month simmering controversy in Bangladesh over the countroversial loan of priceless, centuries old artifacts to France's Musee Guimet burst into the open yesterday. In the early dawn hours of Friday, a day when many of us 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 Bangladesh government officials had decided that matters had dragged on long enough. The show was supposed to open 24th October, but Bangladesh citizen groups had thrown a chaku in the works. With a citizens lawsuit blocking the loan, and an investigative committee deadline 45 days away, the first shipment got underway in defiance of good manners and international law. Word leaked out, and protesters gathered. Gates were scaled, human chains formed, a protester was arrested. But the dawn tactics had worked. By the time more people arrived on the scene, the trucks were on their way. Positions hardened further after the truck fiasco. On the evening news, angry phone calls. Apparently some ground staff at the airport did all they could to block the flight. This actually doesn't take much-- just our normal airport bureacracy (which I was cursing out only a month ago when my video camera was falling prey to it) raised a few notches. The Air France cargo plane sat on the tarmac, missing its midnight rendezvous. But finally five hours later, in dawn hours of Saturday, up up and away. When the controversy first broke, many of us were too confused to take sides. On both sides of the fence were cultural producers and activists whom many of us respected. Even the lawyers representing two parties were familiar rights 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 initially felt like kneejerk nationalism to me. In my naivette I dismissed their concerns. The French are the good guys no, isn't it Americans we are all afraid of now? Surely the French wouldn't dare do anything to our collection, uhh would they..? I spent way too much time reading Tintin comics in my wasted youth. But Tintin in Congo remained untranslated until I found a bootleg copy where Tintin is teaching the African natives "repeat after me, France is your mother". Now I imagined myself as a rubber-lipped sambo. Yessa boss. Did King Leopold collect art as well? I went down to the Alliance Francaise cafe, 5 blocks from my home, to investigate. Alliance administers a benevolent patriarch attitude towards the uninvited unwashed at special events (expats in Dhaka live in splendid bubbles and green zone fortresses). But in the daytime (and at non-guest list events) you can just stroll in. Why did the Guimet want this show so badly? They had already missed the show opening deadline. If there was so much opposition inside Bangladesh, shouldn't they at least show courtesy and 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." Sounds reasonable. Those who oppose this loan are the enemies of globalization. But then why would Shishir Bhattacharjee, professor at Art College, be one of those opposing the loan. He's always been on the mullah's hitlist of progressive professors... A few days later I saw artist Nisar Hossein's name on the same committee. That's odd I thought, Nisar is no dum-dum either. But it's true that the people opposing the loan were initially not good communicators. Their opposition was often focused on the esoteric edges of the debate, rather than the hard facts. But in the last few weeks they started producing more documentation, and more importantly, footnotes. That's when things changed for many of us, because the facts on the ground don't make you oppose loans to European museums per se, but they do highlight that numerous rules have been broken-- all adding up to extreme lack of safety for the collection. More facts emerged, by and by... 1. Lack of documentation a) entire sets of coins catalogued as "coins", with no specifics b) missing accession numbers 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 d) incomplete descriptions, missing descriptions e) ridiculously low 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". 2. The French role There's no doubt that some of the items in #1 were caused by sheer incompetence and possible mal-intentions of the Bangladesh side. But if Bangladesh officials are incapable of protecting their own national heritage (Bangladesh has been identified as one of 3 countries most vulnerable to cultural looting) should the French government, French Embassy and Musee Guimet take advantage of that weakness? a) Musee Guimet is one of 18 museums that have signed a Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums, which opposes returning art works, especially ancient ones, to their original owners. This is in direct opposition to the UNESCO Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995). b) Kwame Opoku has said: "Mus?e Guimet in Paris which incidentally also holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia" has increased citizen debate about the lending. c) Guimet director Jean-Francois Jarriage in the late 50's had worked in the department of archeology in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). During this period, one of the most prized artefacts, a relic casket was taken to France for restoration. Mr. Zakaria, former secretary of the ministry of culture has been unsuccessfully campaigning for the return of the casket for the last 49 years. 3. What next? Now the action moves to France. One shipment of 10 crates is already in Paris. Another shipment of 13 crates may leave very soon as well (another midnight haul?). Bangladeshi activists are starting to petition European media to start building up pressure on Guimet and the French government. Paris-based Bangladeshi artist Shahabuddin and others are planning human chains in front of the Guimet. How far is Guimet willing to go to keep this show. How far are we willing to go? Positions have hardened into stone after Friday's confrontation. 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 Friday's surprise shipment, and police action against protesters, have hardened suspicion of the Guimet. 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." Bangladesh gets such a small share of international cultural attention, the 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 international image building. This has historically led to a broken-spine approach to European and Northern cultural institutions. The face-off with Musee Guimet shows that things are changing. Fine Arts Professor Lalarukh Selim said on ETV: "Governments will come and go, but the objects that have left the country, we may never get them back. And we couldn't do anything, or what we did was not enough. All of us who spoke up, the French embassy gave that no value. We're a poor country, so people could do whatever they wanted." Could they? Will they? Guimet, this is not over. - Naeem Mohaiemen ################### Further Reading: ################### 1. Protesters Battle Police As Musee Guimet Trucks Roll Out http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/11/30/guimet-protests/ 2. Shahidul Alam: Price of Priceless Objects http://shahidul.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/the-price-of-priceless-objects/ 3. Letter To The French Government & Citizens Subject: Musee Guimet's Non-Transparent Borrowing of Priceless Artifacts from Bangladesh We the undersigned artists, archeologists, anthropologists, academics & other concerned citizens of Bangladesh are writing to express our strong objection to the manner in which Musee Guimet of Paris is taking invaluable artifacts from the national museum and four other leading museums of Bangladesh for a planned show entitled "Masterpieces of the Ganges delta". The Musee Guimet transported the artifacts even after widespread protests and a pending citizens' lawsuit in the Bangladesh court. The manner in which the artifacts were transported, in a secret crating during early morning hours under police guard, added to the controversy. As news of the secret shipment leaked out, protesters gathered to form a human chain, and one protester was arrested. Finally, the first shipment of 10 crates of rare archaeological treasures was taken away, despite resistance, to be flown to Paris on December 1st on an Air France cargo plane. There is also a second shipment of 13 crates which is still pending. While the exhibition, which has been billed as being of outstanding quality, and consists of the most prized objects from all the major museums of Bangladesh, it is not part of an exchange programme. The only items that the Bangladeshi people will receive in return are 20 exhibition catalogues. The lack of transparency surrounding the planned exhibition at Musee Guimet includes allegations of under-valuation of artifacts to the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars, lack of accession numbers on numerous objects, improper and incomplete cataloguing (e.g., referring to a set of coins as merely "coins", with no numbers given), inconsistency between documents, missing descriptions, and descriptions that do not conform to international standards. The official insurance value of the entire collection (stated to be "189 pieces" by the French Embassy) has been set at 4 million Euros for the purposes of this exhibition loan. Such a low insurance value for such a large collection, which dates back to the 4th century BC, has been described by an international archaeological expert as "financial fraud". Even if this incorrect valuation had been completed by the Bangladesh authorities, one questions why an international museum would accept such a patently incorrect valuation. Most worrying of all, the number of pieces identified in documentation created by the French photographer who catalogued the exhibit does not match with the contract signed by the French Ambassador. The number of artifacts in the contract in turn does not match with the official press releases from the Dhaka French Embassy. The controversy over the improper handling of the loan escalated over the last two months, resulting in a citizens' lawsuit (still pending in court) and Bangladesh citizens' group's demanded that the Bangladesh government and French authorities allowed experts to inspect the items as per international standards. The Bangladesh government asked the expert committee that is investigating the matter for time until January 15th, 2008 to respond to the committee's queries. Astonishingly, the Musee Guimet began shipment of the artifacts on 30th November, 2007 -- a full 45 days before the expiry of the Bangladesh government's self-imposed deadline. The Bangladesh government and French Embassy officials have, without informing either the committee or the media, taken the items out of the museum in the surprise shipment described earlier. Musee Guimet is one of 18 museums that have jointly signed a separate Declaration on Importance and Value of Universal Museums, which opposes returning art works, especially ancient ones, to their original owners. This is in direct opposition to the UNESCO Convention on Stolen and Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995). This is particularly relevant since the convention was based on the high incidence of theft that was prevailing. Bangladesh was identified as one of the three most vulnerable countries to such threats. Kwame Opoku's recent statement "Mus?e Guimet in Paris which incidentally also holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia" has increased citizen debate about the lending. The French embassy in Bangladesh has dismissed the protesters' concern and said "local procedure in connection with the lending is an internal matter of the Bangladesh government" and there is "no risk in lending artifacts". The embassy also dismissed the protests as "eminent citizens with mixed qualifications, many far outside the field of archaeology, or with little experience of international exhibitions." Guimet director Jean-Francois Jarriage and curator of the show Vincent Lefevre refused to meet with Shahidul Alam, a delegate from the protesters, who traveled to Paris for the purposes of securing an explanation. In his own statement, Jean-Francois Jarriage mentions that in the late 50's he had worked in the department of archeology here. Incidentally, it was during that period that one of the most prized artefacts, a relic casket, of our country, was taken to France for restoration. Mr. Zakaria, former secretary of the ministry of culture, who was then working in the archeology department has since campaigned for the return of the casket, but has failed to get a response from the French government over the last 49 years. The original show at Mus?e National des Arts Asiatiques - Guimet was billed as "Masterpieces of the Ganges delta. Collections from the Bangladesh Museums." The original scheduled dates for the show were 24th October 2007 to 3rd May 2008. The controversy has pushed back the date of the show, but as of today Musee Guimet remains adamant about showing the work without satisfying the demands of the concerned Bangladeshi citizens. 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. Signed A. K. M. Zakaria, archeologist and former secretary, ministry of cultural affairs, GOB (Government Of Bangladesh). Nazimuddin Ahmed, archeologist, former director, department of archeology, GOB. Shamsuzzaman Khan, museologist, former director general, Bangladesh National Museum. Bulbon Osman, art historian, former director institute of fine arts, Dhaka University. Syed Jahangir, painter, former director, department of fine arts, Shilpakala Academy (Academy of Fine and Performing Arts), GOB. Borhanuddin Khan Jahangir, art historian, former pro Vice Chancellor, National University of Bangladesh. A. K. M. Shahnawaz, professor, department of archeology, Jahangirnagar University. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org