Muhammad Nishad Hussain:
Fernando’s narrative follows a well-established pattern of imperial nostalgia, where colonial endeavors, such as the creation of institutions, infrastructure, and administrative systems, are recast as benevolent contributions to the colonized world.
However, his argument disregards the fundamental power dynamics at play: the British did not merely “introduce” museums to India; they imposed a system that centralized cultural artefacts in colonial administrative hubs, thereby stripping local communities of access to their own heritage.
This was not preservation, it was cultural reorganization on imperial terms.
Rohan Fernando:
If Hussain’s allegations were well-founded then, after independence, one would have expected Indians to have considered these institutions of little value, possibly to be closed down, or to change their use.
In reality, on the anniversaries of the founding of these museums, elaborate ceremonies have taken place and leading Indian dignitaries have acknowledged the importance of these institutions for the country and commended the British officials who were involved in their founding.
It is evident that these museums are greatly valued in India. The public debate here has been dominated in recent years by the fate of colonial artefacts in UK museums.
There has been little mention of the British-founded museums throughout the Empire. Important colonial artefacts are to be found in some UK museums, but they also abound in the museums the British established elsewhere.
Museums in India were not all founded solely at the instigation of Britons. The case for the Calcutta Museum was made by a Danish botanist and that for the Prince of Wales Museum by eminent Indians of the day.
Muhammad Nishad Hussain:
Pakistan never celebrated the partition of museum collections ( the way he described). In fact, scholars such as Kavita Singh have criticised this partition, noting that it deprived Pakistan of many significant artifacts now held in India.
