Dear Sir/Madam,
The ‘unsigned’ press note by the Committee of the Museum of Christian
Art, Santa Monica Convent, Old Goa evoked response of disbelief by
fellow Goans across the state and overseas, as my dear friend Dom Martin
wrote back 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.” - Dom Martin
This press note is a belated and weak ‘explanation’ on the course of
unfortunate events that took place at the Christian Art Museum. It is in
fact a brilliant exercise in hogwash meant to deceive the people of Goa
about the real reason why on the night of 25th January, 2012, their
heritage was stolen.
From the points put forth and earlier press comments by committee
members it seems that there is every possibility that the Committee
would not have come forward with any explanation/statement had it not
been for the media reports and heritage lovers strongly condemning the
heist.
For instance, couple of days after the heist, chairman of the committee
Fr. Avinash Rebello told Herald that “There is very little that I know.
I haven’t been keeping track of what has happened” whereas Curator, Ms
Natasha Fernandes told the journalist: “Whatever information you want,
you can get from the police!” and further more talking about the
inventory Committee member Jose Lourenco went on record saying, “We are
in the process of putting things in place in terms of inventory”. So
what does the press statement ‘The Committee went through it's detailed
Inventory (which includes photographs of all objects)’ mean? Which is
this inventory?
So why this sudden change of heart on the part of the so-called esteemed
committee?
Does the Committee expect Goans to laud them for having “rushed to the
site and stayed till the early hours with the Police”? All that can be
said is nice job of shutting the stable after the horses have bolted.
What the public should know is that one or two members visiting does not
mean the whole committee spent the night at the site.
And the condolences to the family of the Mr. Luis Bogato? A fine display
of crocodile tears after having put the poor man in harm’s way. Apt
words from Milton come to mind –“Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
invisible, except to God alone”!
It is clearly becoming impossible for the members to hide their faces as
the newspapers and the concerned heritage lovers doggedly continued to
ask uncomfortable questions in their quest to seek out the truth and
justice.
What is sad however is that the committee continues to hide its face?
The unsigned press note does not tell the people at large who are these
committee members? What are their credentials for being on the committee
of such an important institution? Do they actively participate in the
management of the museum or are they merely ornamental figures ‘adoring
the committee’? It is clear case of assuming responsibility for personal
aggrandisement without an iota of accountability.
Goans however will not be fooled by the meaningless verbiage of this
press note and the insincere ‘compassion’ and ‘sympathy’ towards life
lost and the priceless property stolen on that day. We all know that the
real reason for our immeasurable loss can be encapsulated in just a few
words: Negligence, Apathy and Inefficiency of the Committee.
Furthermore it is obvious that the statement that is released have a lot
of contradictory facts of the fateful day which need to be seriously
addressed.
1. If the committee members were present soon after the incident at 6
pm, then why didn’t the press know till beyond midnight? Why and what
were they trying to hide from the public?
2. By when or what time the site was sealed by the police? And if the
museum premises were sealed then how come there was a picture of the
dead security guard (inside the museum compound) published in one of the
news papers?
3. If the premises were sealed how come strangers and museum delegates/
funders from abroad were allowed on 27th January inside the museum
without checking?
4. Going by the list of exhibits given by the committee that went
missing, Gold filigree rosary, Gold rosary, Gold waistband, Gold
bracelet, Gold Cross with chain, They make it sound as if they are some
simple pieces of handicrafts made of Gold and not priceless museum
exhibits. Were they just ornaments made of Gold or were they studded
with precious stones? What was the size and weight of the exhibits? Were
they at least valued by a goldsmith before they went on display? Don’t
you think that the pictures and technical details are
