Opinion Not museum pieces

The government advertised the post of National Museum director over a year back but unfortunately did not get the response it desired. Reports from the ground suggest that this was because prospective candidates found the terms of employment restrictive and archaic — a one-year contract appointment with insufficient salary and not enough freedom to execute a turnaround. Further,many of the old labyrinthine procedures and self-serving officials continue to impede performance,so that even the bravest and most devoted art historians would be daunted at taking on this challenge.

By discarding search committees,the government will further alienate the art and culture community and make the task of finding good people more difficult. What is at profound risk is our institutions — our museums and archives. The deterioration is evident and as India attracts more visibility and several famous museum directors and cultural personalities visit us,they are shocked and disappointed in particular at the state of our museums.

What can the government do to effect a change and ensure that it is able to attract the right talent? For starters,it must restructure the functioning of the National Museum and the National Gallery of Modern Art,the two most visible museums under its stewardship. Both are under the ministry of culture. They must be cut loose from the apron strings of the government and become autonomous in a true sense. That means financial and not just functional autonomy. The institutions should be provided with a corpus so that the director is not at the mercy of the often impossibly thrifty government finance officials and is enabled to achieve the desired excellence.

No senior,self-respecting art historian is going to be happy about kowtowing to ministry officials. This does not mean that directors should be given unlimited freedom. Checks and balances must be put in place if they do not already exist. But central to the appointment of the directors is the trust between senior officials in the ministry and the individual. Restrictive procedures and too much interference will frustrate any talented and dynamic individual. Too much freedom may risk all kinds of political implications. It is a delicate balance and one that has to be negotiated skilfully.

The ministry should make these institutions into not-for-profit trusts that can formulate their own rules which allow them to remove non-performing or dishonest individuals. Unless the director can enforce institutional discipline and be secure in the knowledge that the staff is honest and committed,it will be difficult to achieve goals.

Finally,contract should be for at least three years. It would take that long to effect a turnaround; a one-year contract makes a mockery of any professional’s talents. Salaries cannot be equated with IAS salaries. They should reflect market conditions and the professional expertise required for being successful in the culture sector. It is important that government recognises the defining public role of museums. The world over,museum directors are considered senior members of the cultural fraternity but here they are treated as minions. In the IAS,rank determines how museum directors are viewed and many of the posts have been given junior designations. Is it any wonder that good people are hesitant?

I would like to end with the example of the Dr Bhau Daji Lad Museum in Mumbai (the erstwhile Victoria and Albert Museum) which has attracted many talented people. It is the oldest museum in the city and is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. It was in a derelict condition and was restored by INTACH with the help of a generous grant from the Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation. The restoration won UNESCO’s highest award and the revitalisation programme,that includes showcasing contemporary art as well as international exhibitions,has received acclaim. A tripartite agreement between the municipal corporation,the Bajaj Foundation and INTACH led to the establishment of an autonomous trust to manage the museum. In essence,it is a partnership between civil society and the government. In this new century,that is what is required. Government can no longer claim to be the sole arbiter of all that is good and just in society. It must involve the people and hear their voice. And the voice of the people is crying for change.

The writer is vice-chairman,INTACH,and managing trustee and honorary director,Dr Bhau Daji Lad Museum,Mumbai
express@expressindia.com