Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

WHEN Pervaiz Elahi, who, judging by his anti-PPP tirades, seems to be getting more desperate by the hour, arrived in Talagang on November 26 to file his nomination papers he got the protocol befitting a mansabdar of the Punjab. From Balkassar on the motorway up to Talagang the police were lined up to pay him due homage.
   The Musharraf order, whatever brave front it puts on, is in mourning because the uniform which was its mightiest emblem now adorns another person. But in the fullness of its powers, two kinds of civilian puppets stood with it, cheering it on and hailing its achievements: the district nazims and the drumbeaters of the Q League. Ample funds and local powers were with the nazims, who now are moving heaven and earth on behalf of the Q League’s sad-faced candidates in this election (sad-faced because time has moved on).
   The entire election process, from filing of nomination papers to the declaration of the results, is overseen by the subordinate judiciary. Without independent judges how is it possible even to contemplate free elections? After the havoc wrought by the Provisional Constitution Order, we know the state the judiciary is in.
   Yet having acquiesced in the games which saw General Musharraf getting himself ‘elected’ president, the opposition parties have left themselves with no choice except to participate in the heavily-loaded affair which lies ahead.
   But the dangers lurking on this road are pretty obvious. Prediction about other things may be difficult but about one thing we can be reasonably certain. On the evening of January 8, much before all the results are in, a great cry will go up across the land accusing the government of a historic act of rigging. Far from settling anything, the election will open fresh wounds.
   Why are all the blinds pulled down so completely in the presidency? Why are its denizens, psychologically besieged behind those frightened walls, so cocooned from reality? A tainted election is the last thing Pakistan needs or wants at this juncture yet it is towards a tainted election that we seem to be marching.
   The presidency is living in a world of its own. On the mind of its chief resident rests neither the burden of posterity nor history. Self-preservation is the only wisdom holding sway behind those worried walls.
   The ‘wasteland’ looks set to be the final title given to the Musharraf years: an opportunity squandered. Yet the shorn-of-his-locks president could still find some honourable mention in history’s footnotes – alas, in a crowded book the only space available – if, in the twilight of his powers (and we know how fast the shadows are closing in), he can bring himself to conduct elections reasonably free and fair.
   This requires all the instincts honed during the last eight years. And that is why a sudden change of heart is so impossible. The second half of a man’s life, says Dostoyevsky in The Possessed, is merely a continuation of the first half. Radical departures are a virtue of youth, not declining evening. Musharraf can only be what he was. So I think destiny’s lines are written. These elections will be what they are and when the tocsin sounds on January 8 we will be well and truly into another crisis.
   What was it in the circumstances of our birth to make us so prone to crises, one having scarcely ended before the fault lines of another emerge? We seem not to have it in our capacity to break the inexorable logic of this endless cycle.
   I have nothing against Shujaat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi, the two Chaudhrys of Gujrat. But to have a nation’s domestic agenda dictated by this duo, which is what happened when Musharraf was general-president, is a joke gone too far. In local or constituency politics no one comes near them. But it’s like making Chicago’s celebrated mayor, Richard Daley, who ruled Chicago back in the 1950s-60s and who also was peerless when it came to gravy-train politics, president of the United States. Or Al Capone chairman of the Sunday league of Baptist preachers (not that there is any organisation by this name, but you get my point).
   Shujaat and Pervaiz are Chicago material but Pervaiz’s heart is set on the prime minister’s mansion. Some truly funny things have been played on the people of Pakistan (Shaukat Aziz being one of them). But Pervaiz nursing the idea of prime minister takes the prize. Whence the encouragement? President Musharraf. This is one presidential favour the country could do without.
   Despite Dostoyevsky’s observation about repetition in life, people grow in office, their horizons widen and they learn new things. But we seem to be caught in a time warp and Musharraf, somehow, is not coming to terms with the cropping of his locks in the form of his diminished presidency. The presidency thinks he should be called president, not general. But can any amount of official circulars change the way people think? Protecting the Q League and trying to turn the wheel back are not the best ways to find a place in a nation’s heart.
   Pakistan’s never-ending turmoil, our so far fruitless quest for stability, has led to at least one happy outcome: some of the finest, most resonant poetry of protest written anywhere in the world. At mountain’s top is Faiz, after him Jalib and a host of others. Protest and rebellion against the established order of things, elusive love, and love never quite reached or consummated, love unfulfilled, is what our poets have sung of, in timeless words and imagery.
   Munir Niazi, quintessential poet of love, or perhaps doomed love, but also the shrewdest of commentators on the national condition. As, for example, in that verse in which he talks about frantic movement (harkat tez tar) but journey’s progress halting and slow, an apt description of Pakistan. Or that haunting verse, ‘Ik aur darya ka saamna hai Munir mujh ko, mein aik darya key paar utra tau mein ney dekha (there is another river in front of me Munir, I saw this when I had crossed one river)’, lines which the opposition parties may have cause to remember when they cross one river on January 8.
   Metaphor and imagery, the distillation of so much into a few words, constitute the essence of poetry. And having produced some of the finest latter-day poets of rebellion, we should have a natural affinity for the symbolic meaning of words and events. But our ruling classes seem singularly free of this failing. Time and again they have proved themselves blind to the symbolism triggered by political choices.
   Consider two examples. Q League is the name of the political grouping, made up largely of turncoats, which has supported Musharraf from the 2002 referendum (of glorious memory) onwards. Were the founders of this rag-tag political grouping oblivious to the loaded nature of the name Quisling? Musharraf has announced that ‘emergency’ (actually martial law) would be lifted on December 16. In the besieged walls of the presidency was there no one to tell him that December 16, the day our troops in East Pakistan under the command of that famous soldier, Lieutenant General ‘Tiger’ Niazi, laid down their arms is the darkest day in our national calendar?
   The task before the nation is immense. We have to honour our judges who have resisted dictatorship. We must never forget them. Their resistance constitutes the best thing to have happened to Pakistan for over fifty years. And we have to find rulers, from what corner I do not know, not totally insensible to the meaning of poetry and symbolism.

THERE has been much misunderstanding about the coming exhibition of the masterpieces of five Bangladeshi museums at the Guimet museum in Paris. And it is really sad that this mutually beneficial operation has been dragged like that in needless controversy.
   This exhibition, the first-ever international exhibition of Bangladeshi heritage, will give the public of Paris, the first tourist destination world wide, an occasion to know better Bangladesh and will contribute to uplifting Bangladesh’s image on the international scene. It is a win-win situation, risk-free, routine, and transparent.
   But a small group of respected persons, acting in good faith but with bad information, have chosen to make an issue out of rumours, although the honourable adviser for culture has already promised that the artefacts will come back safely. On December 4, the charge d’affaires of the French embassy, Jean Romnicianu, also categorically pledged the ‘same word’ on behalf of the French government while talking to a group of journalists from both electronic and print media. He also said that the artefacts would be safely returned to Bangladesh by April next year. Now, let’s go into the detail of the ongoing controversy.
   The agreements: The usual practice is to sign agreements between museums’ directors, but each country may, of course, decide on its own procedures. The Bangladesh authorities preferred to sign the agreements at the government level, which was fine with France. Questions about the legality of such a decision are not answerable by France. Such agreements are not secret but they are confidential because disclosure of the details could put the artefacts or the couriers at risk.
   Consultations: The French side had extensive talks with their counterparts. Since the Bangladeshi authorities had expressed a preference for government-level agreements, France kept discussions at an official level. But some people feel that France should have consulted civil society and assisted Bangladesh because, as they put it, differences in levels of development place France in the position of an adult and Bangladesh in the position of a ‘baby.’ We do not agree. Bangladesh is a sovereign state and a respected partner, not a ‘baby’ and France has no lessons to give. That is the reason why the French embassy has nothing to say on internal Bangladeshi procedures and why, being the representative of our government, we worked exclusively with our counterpart, the Bangladeshi government.
   When concerned citizens contacted the French embassy with specific questions, the embassy answered them as best as it could while respecting the normal confidentiality between parties. Such questions have been few; most questions have been raised in a provocative way through the media.
   Opponents to the exhibition: A small number of eminent citizens (26 originally, less thereafter) with mixed backgrounds, many remarkable but far outside of the field of archaeology, except a few, and none with experience of international archaeological exhibitions, have first expressed fears about the exhibition and then have been using all means possible to stop this exhibition from happening. While differences of opinion are legitimate, unsubstantiated insults misleading the public are not and the French embassy protests against this way of debating.
   Security: The Guimet Museum is a national museum of France. Therefore, the loan agreement is guarantied by the French state. As usual, a decree of non-distrainability has been issued, which means there is no scope whatsoever for anyone to keep the artefacts in France, sell them or do anything at all, except send them back as per the agreement. Thousands of international exhibitions have taken place in France in recent years, and more than a hundred in the Guimet Museum; not a single instance of theft has been recorded during those exhibitions and all the artefacts have been returned. No exception exists to our knowledge related to an international exhibition.
   Yes, stolen artefacts are being trafficked everywhere, including France and Bangladesh, but they do not come from national European museums; they are stolen from their country of origin, whichever it is, as a recent recovery of such pieces made by the Rapid Action Battalion or by many police forces throughout the world demonstrate.
   Documentation: Proper documentation according to international standards was maintained irrespective of initial imperfections: insurance lists have 187 objects, corresponding to 187 accession numbers. A photographic record is annexed to the original agreements. The confusion probably comes from the fact that some working documents were presented by misinformed persons as the final documents. Following common practice, some items, punch marks for instance, are recorded by lots, so there are only 120 catalogue numbers. Each item or lot has its specific insurance value. Demands for video documentation are extravagant and far outside accepted practice.
   Stolen artefacts and trafficking: It has been repeatedly said that Guimet did not sign the UNESCO conventions: not quite true. There are two UNESCO conventions regarding illegal transfer of cultural property: one is dated 1970 and the other dated 1995. France has signed both. Governments, never individual museums, sign such conventions and everything agreed by the French government applies fully to Guimet since it is a national museum. It may be noted that, while 102 countries have signed the 1970 convention, the 1995 convention is not yet widely accepted since only 29 countries have agreed to it. Bangladesh has not.
   The declaration on importance and value of universal museums, signed by the Guimet, Getty, Guggenheim, Metropolitan, Prado, Hermitage and British museums (hardly nobodies) applies only to objects acquired long ago: it has nothing to do with today’s loans (which are not acquisitions anyhow) between museums. It may be noted that Bangladesh is in a similar position: some of the artefacts in its museums could possibly be claimed by other countries, like the helmet and shield of Shah Abbas of Persia.
   Allegations regarding other artefacts not returned after restoration will be examined. What is immediately clear is that those allegations do not refer to an international exhibition and are therefore irrelevant here. France does not pretend everything it does is perfect: we are just saying international exhibitions are routine and risk-free.
   Insurance values: Much has been made of the insurance values. Unique artefacts have, by definition, no monetary value because they cannot be replaced, so the insurance value is only an amount set aside for restoration in case of damage. Because a precise amount has to be decided upon, the lender usually uses the closest value taken from international auction houses. This value is best kept reasonable for two reasons: first, since accidents happen so seldom and would be anyhow fully compensated by the borrower, there is little call to make the insurance companies profit from huge bonuses and second, too high a premium might put the artefacts at risk of been stolen after their return because people might think, mistakenly, that they will be able to sell them for that price. In this particular case, values were reasonable to start with and, purely as a gesture of goodwill, have been increased further according to the recommendations of the committee.
   Some European Indologists have suggested that those values were too low compared to other art works. Buyers determine market value: it is a sad fact of life that very rich buyers are ready to spend millions of dollars for a painting but not for other items.
   The word ‘fraud’ has also been used. That is ridiculous: a fraud implies a financial profit. The only profit for France is cultural: financially, it is a clear loss since this exhibition will be entirely paid by France; needless to say, receipts will, as always, be way below costs.
   Transportation: The highest international standards are being used for this exhibition. Chenue Limited, responsible for packing the artefacts, is known the world over. They have transported the Mona Lisa to Japan and the United States. Two direct flights are used for the transportation and the couriers will be more numerous than is usual and will stay in France for the duration of the exhibition; usually, couriers are only present at the arrival and departure of the artefacts. The security is foolproof.
   Benefits: The benefits, for both countries, are cultural: it is a win-win situation where France gains a better knowledge of Bangladeshi heritage and Bangladesh gains a better image on the international cultural scene.
   Money has been mentioned. Museums are dedicated to culture and art, they are not art dealers. Besides, UNESCO frowns upon royalties between museums, the standard loan form of the Network of European Museums does not mention royalties and the 2005 Action Plan for the EU Promotion of Museum Collections’ Mobility and Loan specifically recommends that no fee should be imposed between museums. It may be noted that the borrower paying everything is not common international practice: many countries consider that that publicity they receive by having an exhibition in Paris is worth a significant financial participation.
   Costs paid in Bangladesh are the fees to the movers (Homebound). All others costs (packers, Guimet’s personnel, airfreight and air tickets, installations costs, running costs of the museum, couriers costs) are paid in France.
   Who benefits financially in Bangladesh? Hardly anybody:
   The three couriers, nominated by each lending institution, receive a 50 euro per day living allowance while in France with paid boarding (minimum salary in France is around 40 euro/day).
   Six officials (4 for the Ministry of Culture, 2 for the Ministry of Education) will be invited to the inauguration. All expenses are paid for up to five days.
   Each lending institution will receive fifty catalogues free of cost (price of the catalogue is 49 euros).
   No royalties, consultation fee, expert’s fees, lobbying fees, publicity or any other monies have been paid or will be paid to anybody in Bangladesh. All fees in France relate to actual services.
   The cost of the exhibition is projected to be around 600,000 euros. Around 200,000 euros are expected from entrance tickets and sales of the catalogue. The rest is financed by a sponsor, Crédit Agricole, a French bank, which has a multiyear sponsorship agreement with Guimet regardless of the actual programme.
   Dhaka-Paris: In order to create a synergy with the Guimet exhibition, the French embassy has been working on a few other cultural events to be held in France during the same period. This so-called ‘Sonar Bangla’ (the real name is Dhaka-Paris) is the embassy’s personal effort: it is not included in the agreements related to the Guimet exhibition and has no legal link to it. The French embassy welcomes any question regarding ‘Dhaka-Paris,’ but it is a separate item.
   Since no significant sponsorship could be found, the Dhaka-Paris had to be limited to the financial capabilities of the French embassy (around 48,000 euros) and other participants (around 47,000 euros). Thus, only the traditional boat exhibition in the navy museum (Friendship NGO – refer to the National Museum and to the Bengal Gallery exhibition of the same), the documentary film festival and the auditorium of the Guimet museum (in collaboration with Alliance Française of Dhaka for the sub-tittles), one Bauls concert (with a French NGO) and, hopefully, a painting exhibition at the CROUS gallery in Paris (with the Bengal Gallery). The French embassy will pay directly some of the costs for these activities, but none of these partners are being paid or are making money with this venture: we are all spending money together because it is our job to foster cultural activities.
   Misinformation: Misinformation has also been used rather freely. The report about missing objects is an example. First, you let fly the rumour that something is missing: this is too good to ignore, so of course some media report it. Then, you use these reports of a rumour as a proof of the same rumour. Well done, but dishonest. The crates containing the artefacts were securely stored by the Bangladesh National Museum and only three crates have been partially opened by the committee, without unpacking, and immediately sealed again: obviously again, nothing could have disappeared.
   Secrecy: There never was any secrecy, but there was certainly a lot of surprise on the French side. These exhibitions are routine for the Guimet museum, they are usually set up between museums without any fuss and no one imagined that this project would create such emotions or would require justification. Secrecy should not be confused with normal discretion regarding agreements: nobody publishes in the media the agreements or contracts they sign, outside of public procurement procedures.
   As for ‘secretly’ removing the artefacts, it was done at 11:00am through the main entrance of the National Museum with a truck from a reputed moving firm and in presence of all officials concerned, including security personnel, as per the schedule agreed with the government of Bangladesh to be put on a normal scheduled flight: how is that for secrecy?
    As soon as it can, the French embassy will open a website to give everybody a chance to be informed of all those events in France.
   Shakhawat Hossain is the press attaché of the French embassy

Sidr arrest

There is no doubt the present caretaker government is trying to overcome the affect of this catastrophe. But they have to realise that these people have lost everything and they are spending their days half-fed. A hungry man is an angry man. If the authorities fail to remain sympathetic towards these hapless people unwanted situation will occur more frequently.
   Sujan Kanti Das
   On e-mail
   

Once upon a time Aesop’s Fables were compulsory reading for students of elementary classes. The fables had bottom-lines called the moral of the story. One such story has a moral which says ‘A rogue is never short of excuses’.
   Haq
   On e-mail
   

Next on Quick Comments

a. Sedition case against Mujahid, Kader, Hannan hits a snag: Police refuse to register FIR; individual cannot file sedition case, says Mainul (New Age, December 7) b. Schools charging excessive fees from SSC candidates (New Age, December 7) November 22) c. People not worried about polls: Mainul (New Age, December 7) d. Police, judiciary take most bribes: global watchdog (New Age, December 7) e. US is the world’s largest jailer: HRW (New Age, December 7) f. India passes law to punish children who neglect elderly parents (New Age, December 7)