CONTROVERSY: THE MOCA REPLIES
Fr. Avinash Rebelo, President
Museum of Christian Art
Santa Monica Convent -- Old Goa
museumofchristian...@gmail.com
The Museum of Christian Art (MOCA) has been very much in the
news over the last week and unfortunately there has been an
extent of misinformation/incorrect statements appearing in
the media. The objective of this note is to set the records
right.
Three years prior to the inauguration of the Museum in 1994,
Prof. Teotonio R. De Sousa, then Director, Xavier Center of
Historical Research had been entrusted to prepare an
inventory of the art objects in the churches and main chapels
of Goa, which he did so painstakingly with field assistance
of Mr Fausto Colaco and Mr Felix Ferrao.
Based on this inventory, Ms. Maria Helena Mendes
Pinto (Curator of Arte Antiga, Lisbon) and Ms.
M.da Conceicao Borges (also of the same Museum)
after a round through the churches and chapels made
a final selection of the art objects to be
displayed in the Museum. It is unfortunate that a
few volumes of this inventory have disappeared from
the Museum when at Rachol.
Mr. Victor Hugo Gomes a Graduate in Fine Arts, not Museology,
was appointed as Junior Curator. His main task was to collect
the selected objects from the churches and the chapels. He
left the services of the Museum around 4 months after the
inauguration of the Museum.
We can justifiably say that the Museum has one of the finest
catalogues of items on display, in India. The inputs to the
catalogue have been culled from the inventory painstakingly
produced by qualified Museologists from Gulbenkian and the
MOCA and with the support of professional photographers. To
say that the Museum has no inventory is displaying total
ignorance of fact or deliberate attempt to malign.
Providing security cover for a Museum involves providing
security guards and electronic surveillance and the extent of
coverage by both depends on the budget available. MOCA had
been sanctioned an initial budget of Rs 3 lakhs (or Rs.
25000 p.m.) by the State Government for meeting the costs
of security guards, subsequently increased to Rs 4.5 lakhs in
recent years. Within this limited budget only four guards
(from a reputable Mumbai security contractor who has several
industrial and commercial clients in Goa) could be paid for
doing duty at the Museum on a 24-hour basis.
It is unfortunate that there was only one guard at the time
around the change of shift on the evening of 25th January, a
lapse on the part of the security contractor for which
explanation has been sought, as our contract with them
stipulates that at any given time there would be 2 guards at
the Museum.
For the other systems that were put in place the
MOCA had to find its own funds. It was able to do
so but only to the extent of a CCTV system and a
burglar alarm system. The CCTV system was used
mainly for surveillance of visitors and it did not
have a recording system. Frequent power outages
and severe voltage surges often caused damage to
the Museum equipment and frequently resulted in
erratic functioning and false alarms from the alarm
system. Because of this and the risk of a short
circuit resulting in fire, a set of keys were kept
with the security in charge. Security at the MOCA
was provided to prevent theft and burglary. What
took place at the MOCA on 25th January was dacoity
i.e. armed forceful entry. The cost of provision
of armed guards would have been outside our budget.
With regard to insurance cover, it may be noted that when
MOCA tried to insure the Museum and its objects, we were
informed that there were no schemes in India to insure
Museums because of the high and indeterminable antiquity
value of the objects and even if it were possible the premium
involved would have been extremely high.
We were also informed that Government owned and sponsored
Museums are not insured but usually function under a
sovereign guarantee. MOCA had no role to play in either
receiving or disbursing of funds for setting up the Museum.
The Gulbenkian Foundation and INTACH who funded the project
handled this between them and on completion handed the Museum
to the Museum of Christian Art Society. No funds were
provided by either The Gulbenkian Foundation or INTACH to the
Museum for its operation. This was solely the responsibility
of the Museum of Christian Art Society.
A fund collecting arm of the Museum, 'Amigos de
Rachol' under the chairmanship of Bal Mundkur set
out to collect funds through donations for the
Museum and advertisements for a souvenir brochure.
The ambitious target of collection was not met and
we were told by 'Amigos de Rachol' that this was
because
