British Museum Playing Games With IndiaEXCERPTS from a recent report by the Museum Security Network read: 'In India along with other British museum experts as part of an ambitious culture ministry programme to train museum officials from across the country, MacGregor deftly sidestepped a question on whether there is any effort to restore India objects of historical value lying in Britain's museums to India.'In London, people from all across can see Indian objects besides objects from Europe, Americas and elsewhere and make out for themselves the extraordinary position of Indian culture along with other civilizations of the world and that is a very important thing,' the museum expert said.On the other hand, Union culture secretary, Jawhar Sircar said efforts, albeit 'slow', are definitely taking place to restore such objects to their respective countries of origin.'We are working through the UNESCO Convention of Restitution of Cultural Property in this regard. Although slow, it is a sure process that is working. And we have reasons to believe that mutual settlements under the aegis of UNESCO are being worked out through a consultative process,' said Sircar, who has been awarded the first-ever British Museum medal for his 'extraordinary contributions' in piloting museum reforms in the country.'THE statement about people from various countries coming to London and being enabled to appreciate Indian culture among other culture is vintage MacGregor:'In London, people from all across can see Indian objects besides objects from Europe, Americas and elsewhere and make out for themselves the extraordinary position of Indian culture along with other civilizations of the world and that is a very important thing.'Contrary to the view expressed in the report, MacGregor is seen to have answered the question; there is no effort on the part of Britain to restore to India the treasures that were looted, confiscated, stolen or otherwise seized during the British domination of India. The answer given by the Director of the British Museum follows the pattern of answers given to Greece about the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles, to Egypt about the Rosetta Stone and to Nigeria regarding the Benin Bronzes.The basic philosophy of the argument presented is, of course, faulty and bereft of any truth but is the stock-in-trade of MacGregor, Cuno, Philippe de Montebello and many others, who want to keep at all cost the looted/confiscated artefacts in the so-called 'universal museums' or 'encyclopaedic museums'..To say or imply that Indian culture could only be fully appreciated in London because of the presence of objects from other cultures, is of course, not correct, apart from its being an insult. Indians surely can appreciate their own culture without the presence of objects from other cultures. They can also appreciate English culture without having in their museums looted national treasures of England.We are not objecting to any comparative approach to the study of culture but the requirements of a serious comparative approach are clearly beyond the grasp of average visitors to the museums who come with a heavy baggage of preconceptions that will impede a proper understanding of a foreign culture in a comparative way. It is enough for the average visitor to understand the functions and importance of an artefact in its own cultural context without being burdened with comparisons with other cultures.Tom Flynn has described the museum visitor as follows: 'This ideal visitor, endowed with a sufficiently sophisticated visual awareness to grasp the finer nuances of formal stylistic development across cultures, is a myth propagated by museum curators out of touch with their audience. In fact, the evidence would suggest that such art historical subtleties are beyond the average visitor. As Louvre Director Henri Loyrette recently told a conference at the British Museum, 'Most of our displays mean nothing to people.'Indeed, a survey of Louvre visitors revealed that 67 per cent questioned in the Archaic Greece room could not identify a personality or event connected with the period.Today's average museum goer is a modern day flneur, strolling rather aimlessly through the corridors, partaking of the visual pleasures in a random way, looking at objects, looking at other people, looking at other objects, perhaps pausing occasionally to marvel at something that asserts its individuality from within the panoply arrayed before him.To state it in this way is not to patronise the visitor, but to acknowledge the nature of the modern museum experience. Moreover, while the majority of today's museum visitors may not have grasped the dramatic changes in the representation of the human body that marked the transition from the Archaic to the Classical in Greek sculpture, the majority has nevertheless registered the equally dramatic shift from a colonial to a post-colonial world. Hence the unequivocal majority votes for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece every time a poll is undertaken. Seventy six museum visitors, if not museum directors, seem to have benefited from the true legacy of the Enlightenment although clearly on this issue the opinion of what James N. Wood describes as the 'unindoctrinated public' matters little to the museum.'IT is interesting that Jawhar Sircar, Secretary, Ministry of Culture, who has been awarded the first-ever British Museum medal for his 'extraordinary contributions' in piloting museum reforms in India sought to give assurance that they are working through the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970 and under the aegis of UNESCO. Most of us will agree that proceeding through UNESCO is slow but very few would agree that the slow process is working. None of the recent important restitutions of national cultural property, whether in the Peruvian case, the Egyptian or Italian case was achieved through the procedures of UNESCO which are dependent on the goodwill of the States concerned.The report before the 17th session (30 June -July 2011) of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (5) lists in an annex, significantly entitled, 'Examples of Cultural Property Returned or Restituted Without Action by the Committee.' Among such are: May 2011: Restitution of collection of Peruvian cultural objects (United States of America - Peru); ay 2011: Restitution of a Maori head (France - New Zealand); April - May: 2011: Restitution of Korean manuscripts (France - Republic of Korea).The report of the Committee also lists cases that have been through the mediation or conciliation procedures of the Committee. These procedures are again dependent on the goodwill of the States concerned. The role of the Committee is advisory and its recommendations are not legally binding. The Committee, through its contacts with parties seeks to promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation and negotiations that may eventually lead to resolution of disputes relating to return of cultural property. But it cannot oblige a State that is not willing to return cultural property to do so. India does not appear at present to have submitted any case to the Committee.
Click here to read full news..
