Paper short abstract:

The planned exhibition in France of the masterpieces from Bangladesh museums brought up issues of the status of artifacts as the identity and patrimony of a nation, ownership and appropriation. Showing them to the world, i.e. the west does not add worth to them but projects them as objects.

Paper long abstract:

Bangladesh is a country with a multicultural and syncretic past reflected in its unique art. The Musee Guimet of France planned an exhibition of about 200 masterpieces from the five major museums of Bangladesh in 2007. The process began in 2005. Citizens filed lawsuits voicing their concerns about the terms of the contract and security measures. The Government formed an investigation committee, which reported diverse irregularities in documentation. Despite demonstrations and lawsuits, the second consignment left for the airport where two priceless sculptures of the fifth century were stolen. The process finally halted and the Bangladesh Government cancelled the show. The Cultural Attaché of the French Embassy audaciously said that the protesters against the show were behind the theft. This debacle brought up the controversy between the national and the universal. The protesters demanded cancellation of the show because of the risks they foresaw, the disregard for the constitution of Bangladesh, and international laws. The proposed benefit of the show for Bangladesh was image improvement by exhibiting its cultural richness. The objection was why it was so important to improve the image to the world, i.e. the west? The existence of the artifacts is most important, as they are not 'objects' but the patrimony of the people. They are most significant in their context and not empty museum pieces. They embody the highest achievements of a people and may not be 'used' or risked for any objective. Their existence continues to affirm the self-worth, identity and history of the people.