[vinnomot] Letter To French Government & Citizens (December 1, 2007)

VIDEO: Protest Press Conference
VIDEO: Protest Press Conference 2

Protesters battle police as trucks secretly carry artifacts to the airport en route to Musee Guimet, France.



[Photos: Shahidul Alam/Drik]

Further Reading
1. Shahidul Alam:The Price Of Priceless Objects

##############################################
2. Letter To French Government & Citizens (December 1, 2007)

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 "Musée 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 Musée 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.
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.
##############################################
3. Concerns regarding the risk in lending artefacts to the Guimet Museum, Paris

by Serajul Islam Choudhury, AKM Zakaria, Shamsuzzaman Khan and Lala Rukh Selim

The following points are addressed with regards to the explanation of the French Embassy in Dhaka (published in New Age, page 10, dated November 24 and The Daily Star, page 16, dated November 24, 2007, entitled "Artefact issue—French embassy clarification" and "French Embassy says no risk in lending artefacts" respectively) in response to the news conference by what the Embassy dubbed "some art connoisseurs, artists and activists".

1. The explanation states "the local procedure in connection with the lending is an internal matter of the Bangladesh government on which it (the French Embassy) has nothing to say". It should be noted that France is a developed and powerful nation in distinct contrast to Bangladesh, a 'third world, underprivileged country. From an ethical perspective, the French Embassy as a representative of the Government of France does bear a moral responsibility, even if the local procedure is an internal matter of the Bangladesh Government. After all, is it not bad practice to steal candy from a baby? The adult is to blame when an immoral act is perpetrated. It is neither acceptable nor understandable why an adult pleads in that situation should plead innocence.

2. The French Embassy thanks the far-sighted partners who have worked for the resdeepening of cultural relations of the countries for 'mutual benefit'. Here it is to be noted that no benefit is perceptible to the people of Bangladesh as they say are not borrowing any artefact from France in exchange for the priceless collection of Bangladeshi artefacts which is now in question. In fact, Bangladesh is not receiving any financial benefit as royalty from the exhibition. Bangladesh will receive only 20 copies of the catalogue to be published for the exhibition. Therefore, the 'mutual benefit' is a very questionable issue.

3. Unfortunately, even the recent history of France presents many examples where countless artefacts claimed as heritage by the nations they have come from have not been returned. In fact, the Musee Guimet is one of the 18 museums which has 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 which laid down regulations that stolen or illegally excavated objects shall be returned to the owners (nations, natural or legal persons), cultural objects exported illicitly shall restituted upon request of the country of origin if it can prove that the illegal export would have an essential impact on scientific and cultural interests or that the object is of essential cultural significance for the country of origin.

As to the Musee Guimet, it is to be noted that it 'holds thousands of stolen/illegal objects from China and the rest of Asia'.

'France, . . . are known as dumping grounds for stolen art because of laws regarding ownership of stolen property, according to Ellis: "France, . . . are known as 'good faith' countries – their laws say if you buy in good faith, you buy title to the object, not withstanding the fact that it was stolen" ( canada.com).

Also to be considered is the Reuters report to affect that French Culture Minister Christine Albanel has called for adapting existing laws to focus more closely on theft and vandalism in museums and heritage sites as the soaring prices for major robberies in recent years.

Because the Guimet has not signed the UNESCO Convention and in view of the above reports, serious doubts may be cast on its credibility and ethics in an exchange with Bangladesh which has already gone against the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums where it is stated, "Museums should conform to all national and local laws and respect them and affect their operation". Let it suffice to say that there is enough evidence and controversy regarding the Musee Guimet not to put it beyond suspicion. These facts cannot be ridiculous or insulting, they can only deepen the existing concerns.

4. As for there never being any accusations against the National Museums of France, like Guimet, for substituting a fake for the original, only example will be cited here to invalidate this claim. The Louvre is refusing Turkish request for return of Ottoman tiles which were retained for restoration and though most originals were returned, some were replaced by copies bearing French patents on the reverse. Therefore, such spurious statements should not be made by the Embassy of France.

5. Last but not the least, the Embassy of France has said that a small number of "eminent citizens with mixed qualifications, many far outside the field of archaeology, or with little experience of international exhibitions, have been using all means possible to stop the exhibition from happening …". Unfortunately, this concern for the right qualifications of those remotely concerned with the national heritage or patrimony of the country would have been more understandable if the lack of involvement of such professionals and experts from Bangladesh side during the selection, identification, cataloguing and other stages of the plan of the exhibition had not taken. The French Embassy should be aware that each and every citizen of a country has a right over its heritage and even a farmer or labourer can demand a say on patrimony (property inherited from ancestors , heritage). It should also be noted that the art of the past is not the sole preserve of the archaeologists. Any person in the field of culture has to revert to the past to understand the present. Perhaps the Embassy of France is ignorant about the qualifications and scope of the persons they are alluding to.

Moreover, Mr AKM Zakaria, a pioneer and reputed archaeologist as well as the former secretary to the Ministry of Culture, Bangladesh was the main organiser of the November 22 News Conference. In fact he pointed out how a relic casket found in Mainamati in 1958-59 was sent to France for restoration and has still not been returned after many dialogues. Many other archeologists and related professionals have strongly opposed the exhibition among whom Mr Nazimuddin, Mr Shamsuzzaman Khan, Prof. Shahnewaz and others may be named. Let it suffice to say that culture encompasses all spheres of human activities, and that a country's heritage is shared by all its citizens. If even the smallest group of 'eminent' citizens are concerned about the security of our precious heritage, it should suffice to say that they represent the concerns of many more.

1. Professor Serajul Islam Choudhury,
English Department
Dhaka University

2. Mr AKM Zakaria
Archaeologist and former secretary to the Ministry of Culture, Bangladesh

3. Professor Shamsuzzaman Khan
Former Director General
National Museum, Bangladesh

4. Ms. Lala Rukh Selim
Associate Professor
Institute of Fine Art
Dhaka University

 

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___