|
Part
6, Issue
# 63 - May 2, 2002
Judging
is a thankless job, a juror recently told us. The argument went on that you
couldn?t satisfy the exhibitors no matter what the award. Our plea was that
this can not be a reason for not trying.
We
continue to focus on judging, with specific instances, this time on only one
discipline ? revenues.
A
M Mollah was quoted in a report published in ?The Revenue Journal of Great
Britain?, Vol. 11 # 1, June 2000, as follows:
?Abdul
Mollah recently attended a National Stamp Exhibition at Bhubaneswar, the capital
of Orissa State where the judges didn?t seem to like revenue exhibits?
The judging of revenue
exhibits later in the year at INDEPEX-ASIANA 2000 was the same story. These were
evaluated in a very strange manner. On inquiry the Jury held Indian members
responsible for this. The results were as under: Anil Suri won a Gold with
Special Prize, for his exhibit that is winning Gold at World level since
PHILAKOREA 1994, and Rajan Jayakar won a Gold for the first time.
After this all other participants uniformly were awarded a Vermeil, it
seems without applying any yardstick whatsoever ? Dr. Anjali Dutta (first time
exhibit), Anil Suri (another exhibit), Ajay Kumar Mittal, Rajan Jayakar (another
exhibit), Sahadeva Sahoo, and the veteran revenue philatelist & Bureau
Member of the Revenue Commission of the International Philatelic Federation ?
A M Mollah. This is not only unjust but also insulting to the exhibitors. Under
no stretch of imagination these exhibits will earn the same award in a properly
judged show. Some will definitely go down in evaluation while some will deserve
higher awards.
Indian jurors? aversion to
revenue exhibits is well known. We appeal for evenhanded treatment of this
prominent area of philately.
Earlier
Anil Suri of New Delhi wrote in a letter to Secretary General of PCI on April
24, 2002. We reproduce excerpts as follows:
?I have been collecting
Revenues of Indian Princely States for nearly two decades, exhibiting for over
eight years, and brought the highest awards in the class to the country. I am
very much concerned with the whole approach and judging for the Revenues Class
in India. Without being prejudiced towards anybody I personally would have liked
to have at least one specialized member of the Jury from this discipline.
Unfortunately it is becoming clearer that the collective attitude of PCI towards
this discipline is a bit negative.?
?Inpex 93 was the first
national to have the Revenues Class. It is a common knowledge that at the
confidential Jury sessions behind closed doors all fiscal exhibits were
ruthlessly downgraded.?
The complete text of his
letter is available at
http://www.geocities.com/mjhingan/Content/Features/suria-revenues.htm
Secretary
General of PCI, Dilip Shah of Jabalpur replied to Anil Suri on June 20, 2002. We
reproduce excerpts as follows:
?The Department of Post in
India has no interest in the promotion of the Revenue and Fiscal and there is a
strong feeling that they have nothing to do with it.
Time and again, serious objections have been raised by the Department
officials questioning their support and inclusion of the Revenue Class in the
State, National and International Exhibitions which were being organized by the
Department. If the PCI had not taken keen interest for the promotion of the
Revenue philately in India, it would have long been out of the exhibitions
organized by the Department of Post, which has no interest or obligation to
include it.?
It
is convenient for PCI and some of its office bearers to pass on the blame to
India Post however the areas in which the Department is interested in, have been
loosing favor with the Indian collectors on the behest of the PCI as they are
not the current international collecting favorites like the collection of
FDC?s that use to generate large volumes of sale and still can for India Post.
We once again reiterate that India Post definitely needs to decide what is of
national importance and frame their exhibiting regulations accordingly.
A handful of international level collectors should not be impacting the
fun derived by tens of thousands of young collectors of First Day Covers.
The above-mentioned letter
further goes on to mention ?The PCI accredited Jury are qualified to judge all
the disciplines up to National level. It
is not possible or practical to have separate specialist Jury for each
discipline at the State and National level exhibitions.
For selection as an Apprentice Juror, besides having certain minimum
qualifications and wide experience, the person should also have a suitable
temperament and ability to work together in a team or a group and above all an
unbiased approach and unquestionable integrity.
Therefore, the Apprentice Jury nominations have to be approved by the PCI
Governing Council.?
The complete text of this
letter is available at
http://www.geocities.com/mjhingan/Content/Features/shahd-revenues.htm
Anil Suri responded with
another letter to Secretary
General of PCI on July 18, 2000 that remains unanswered till date. We reproduce
excerpts as follows:
?If the Department of Post
has no interest or obligation towards revenue philately that is very much
understandable. There has never been a Revenue Class at district or state level
so far. And last national the Department had organized was in 1993, therefore I
fail to understand what PCI had done in this regard that you have been gloating
about. And I do have evidence of PCI opposing revenues during this period that I
have held back.?
?I am mighty pleased
regarding the qualifications, experience, temperament, approach, integrity, and
ability to work together for Jurors as mentioned. Please let me know how many of
existing jurors, including yourself, can prove to be true to the requirements as
stipulated by you.?
The complete text of this
letter is available at
http://www.geocities.com/mjhingan/Content/Features/suria-revenues-1.htm
Philatelic
world in general and Indian philately in particular needs stalwarts like Mollah
who has been totally devoted to revenues for over two decades. He has been a
Bureau Member of the FIP Revenues Commission from its very inception and has
been exhibiting revenues internationally since 1988. Mollah has been associated
with Koeppel & Manners catalogs of Indian States revenues and has authored a
score of articles on revenue philately. It is high time that PCI includes
specialists, like him, as a member of the Jury.
|