Mismanagement by the museum management - The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11721399.cms

Februray 2, 2012

SHARE
AND
DISCUSS

The unsigned press note by the committee of the Museum of Christian Art, Santa Monica Convent, Old Goa, evoked shock and disbelief from Goans across the country and overseas.

The renowned artist, Dom Martin, wrote to me saying: "Works of religious art and artifacts are manifestations of divine intervention. The theft or plunder of such works is an act of abominable sacrilege, and, violates the fundamental ethics to which we are universally bound and codified as conscionable human beings. To the damning detriment of religious heritage, such perpetrators and their co-conspirators callously characterize the progressive calibration of diabolic greed and gain."

The belated and weak 'explanation' from the committee on the course of unfortunate events that took place at the museum was in fact a brilliant exercise in hogwash meant to deceive the people of Goa about the real reason why on the night of January 25 their heritage was stolen.

This and earlier press comments by committee members suggest that the committee would not have provided any explanation/statement had it not been for the in-depth media reports and strong condemnation from heritage lovers.

For instance, a couple of days after the heist, committee chairman, Fr Avinash Rebello told a local newspaper: "There is very little that I know. I haven't been keeping track of what has happened." This was followed by curator Natasha Fernandes: "Whatever information you want, you can get from the police." Apropos the priceless inventory, committee member Jose Lourenco said on record: "We are in the process of putting things in place in terms of inventory." So, what exactly does the press note statement mean: 'The committee went through its detailed inventory (which includes photographs of all objects)'? Which inventory is this committee referring to? It appears it is merely indulging in damage control and improve on previous insensitive statements.

Goans will not be fooled by the meaningless verbiage of the press note. The real reason for our immeasurable loss can be encapsulated in: negligence, apathy and inefficiency of the committee.

Does the committee expect Goans to laud them for having "rushed to the site and stayed till the early hours with the police"? Nice job of shutting the stable after the horses have bolted. Perhaps the public should know that just one or two members spent just a couple of hours at the site. And the condolences to the family of the killed security guard, Luis Bogato? A fine display of crocodile tears after having put the poor man in harm's way.

It is imperative that we address the contradictory facts in the vapid statements of the press note so that Goans are aware of the crimes committed against their heritage:

1. If committee members were present soon after the incident which occurred around 6pm, why was the press in the dark until past midnight? Why and what was the committee trying to hide from the public?

2. At what time was the site sealed by the police? If the museum premises were sealed then how did one of the newspapers publish a photo of the dead security guard lying in the compound?

3. If the premises were sealed then how were strangers and museum delegates/overseas donors allowed inside the museum on January 27 without any security checks? Was the committee so confident that all evidence had been secured?

4. The committee lists the stolen items as follows: 1) Gold filigree rosary 2) Gold rosary 3) Gold waistband 4) Gold bracelet 5) Gold cross with chain. This generic description is deliberately deceiving because it gives the appearance that the stolen items are simple pieces of handicrafts made of gold and not priceless museum exhibits of timeless heritage.

Also, were they just ornaments made of gold or were they also studded with precious stones? What was the size and weight of the exhibits? Were they at least valued by a goldsmith before going on display? Was it not necessary to publish pictures and technical details of the stolen exhibits so the public could identify and value them?

5. Ironically, the inventory that was made public reflected the inadequacy and unprofessionalism in archiving and documentation of the museum's artifacts.

6. The press note clearly concedes that funds for providing adequate security for the museum since 2002 have never been a problem, thanks to government and foreign funding. Why then was there only one unarmed guard, a non-functioning surveillance camera, fluctuating lights and a non-functioning burglar alarm system on that fateful day? What are the funds being used for? What wisdom or folly motivated the committee to give the keys of the museum to the guard even after the museum was closed? It borders on criminality that in spite of ample funds, the committee in their apathy, inefficiency and negligence failed to provide a foolproof security system and related checks and balances.

more:

Mismanagement by the museum management - The Times of India