|
Part
9, Issue # 66 - May 23, 2002
PHILAKOREA
94 at Seoul, Korea in 1994 was the venue where D N Jatia was elected the
president of International Philatelic Federation (FIP) for a second and the last
term with better election results than the first time and Anil Suri?s exhibit
on Indian Princely States in Revenues Class won its first Gold after being
downgraded to Large Vermeil at INPEX 93 national. This was also the historic
occasion where Dilip Shah got his Grand Prize of Honor.
D
N went on to successfully complete his term as FIP president, Shah to win more
medals and honors, as well as brick bats and Suri went on to participate in
SINGAPORE 95, TAIPEI 96, PACIFIC 97, and INDEPEX 97. However since then none of
Suri?s applications to participate were accepted till 2001. The reason?
One
of the national commissioners in early 2000 told Suri that none other than Shah
issued verbal orders that Suri?s exhibit should not be recommended by the
commissioner to the organizers. Many commissioners did not even forward the
application to the organizers it seems.
Are
the persons, who are plaint and fill positions in PCI expected to act
differently?
Shah
naturally was simply acting on the orders from above, in this case from Pittie.
Was Pittie acting on his own or on orders from some one, which we may never
know?
Dilip Shah was the national
commissioner from India for the world philatelic exhibition WIPA 2000 in Vienna,
Austria. He wrote to Anil Suri on November 25, 1999 ?Due to over application
of entries for WIPA 2000 they couldn?t accept few of the entries. I?m sorry
to inform you that they couldn?t accept your entry.? Shah also was the Vice
President and Secretary General of the Philatelic Congress of India (PCI) at
that time and in a very common display of his usual mix ups he signs the letter
as Secretary General of the PCI and not as the national commissioner.
Suri wrote back on November 30, 1999
?I am very upset not only that my entry has been not accepted at WIPA 2000 but
also none of my entries has been accepted at a world exhibition in past three
years. ??? I have extensively revised and improved my exhibits every time
these were displayed. I am unable to understand the regular non-acceptance
despite ??? I will appreciate if you can recommend and get my exhibit
accepted in WIPA 2000 as a special case.?
Suri
also wrote another letter to M G Pittie, then PCI President on November 30,
1999. ?I am unable to believe that five rejections in a row could be a
coincidence. ??? I am not trying to enter each and every exhibition that
is there. What pains me more is when I see lesser-awarded exhibits been accepted
at exhibitions where my exhibit has been rejected. ??? I request you to
please investigate this matter and get me the justice. Also kindly guide me to
get my exhibits accepted in exhibitions beginning in 2001.?
On December 30, 1999 Suri sent a
reminder separately to both Shah and Pittie. That brought following response
from Shah in his letter of January 3, 2000. ?I have received your both the
letters dt 30th Nov 99 and Dec 30, 99 in time but I could not reply
to you earlier as I was busy with work.?
Although Suri did not mention
anything about his letter to Pittie, Shah stated in his above mentioned letter
?Regarding your letter dt 30th Dec 99 you have written to Mr. M.G.
Pittie and he will give the reply to your letter.? While being busy with the
work he did not have time to reply but did have time to exchange notes with
Pittie.
Suri wrote to Shah on March 31, 2000
?Your reply gives a clear picture of the priority you accord in replying to
letters from members and participants, being Vice-President &
Secretary-General of PCI as well as the National Commissioner for WIPA 2000. In
your own words you do not even take it as work. I am surprised at this stand
taken by you. ??? I wrote two separate letters on November 30, 1999 to two
separate officers of PCI in two different contexts. I wrote to you in your
capacity of PCI appointed National Commissioner for WIPA 2000 and to Mr. Pittie
in his capacity as the President of a FIP accredited National Federation - PCI.
I am amazed that you are able to confuse such a crystal clear issue. ???
I understand that the President of PCI is the supreme authority under the
constitution but fail to understand that he should shoulder the responsibility
of an elementary job of replying letters to participants on behalf of a PCI
appointed National Commissioner. I doubt very much that Mr. Pittie will agree to
do this job for all the present commissioners. ??? I expected from you a
straight answer to my request for recommending and getting my exhibit accepted
at WIPA 2000 as a special case. And to Mr. Pittie I wrote regarding consistent
non-acceptance of my exhibits in past three years at various exhibitions where
you were not the National Commissioner. ??? Now I once again will attempt
to explain to you that regarding my application to WIPA 2000 the damage is
already done to me by inaction on your part. Furthermore I definitely would like
to know from you, (and NOT from Mr. Pittie or any other person you may in your
wisdom choose to abdicate in favor of), what action you have taken in getting
the exhibit accepted in your capacity as National Commissioner for WIPA 2000?
Finally here is a sincere request, PLEASE TAKE THIS ALSO AS WORK and reply
immediately.?
Pittie in his letter to Suri on
January 20, 2000 strangely replies letters addressed to Shah but makes no
mention to the letters addressed to him. ?I am to acknowledge a copy of your
letter to Shri Dilip Shah, dated 30 November, 1999 and also the letter dated 30
December, 1999. ??? These could not be replied to earlier as I was out of
town frequently. ??? With reference to your entry not being accepted by
WIPA 2000 is not in our hands. ??? The Commissioner always tries to see
that maximum entries are sent from our Country.
If the Organisers do not accept some entries, it may be due to constraint
on space. This is beyond our
control.?
Suri
wrote to Pittie on March 31, 2000 ?I eagerly await a reply to my
letters of November 30, and December 30, 1999. To help you do that I once again
state in brief the events. Kindly refer to my letters addressed to you as
mentioned above for more details. I have applied to the following exhibitions in
past three years, unfortunately all without any success.
Exhibition, Exhibit, National
Commissioner
ISRAEL 98, Fiscals of Cochin, Vispi S Dastur
IBRA 99, Fiscals of Cochin, Damyanti Pittie
PHILEXFRANCE 99, Fiscals of Kashmir, Dhirubhai Mehta
THE STAMP SHOW 2000, Fiscals of Cochin, Yogesh Kumar
WIPA 2000, Fiscals of Kashmir, Dilip Shah
I would like to put it on record that in the above exhibitions entries with much
less merit and award levels in 'fiscal class' from India were accepted. ???
I wish to know from you the responsibilities National Commissioners have, if
any, towards participants or are they appointed solely to enjoy the hospitality
of the organizers. ??? I suspect these instances are evident of
willful discrimination against me. And it has resulted in a lot of mental agony
for last three years especially as I am on the verge of moving to the next stage
in the competition namely Large Gold. ??? The indifferent attitude of
PCI appointed National Commissioners has damaged my country's honor and mine.?
Shah wrote to Suri on April 5, 2000
with a copy to Pittie ?That I had sent 15 entries which are as under:- Mr.
Zahidul Islam, Daniel Montheru, Anil Suri, Master sachin Goyal, B. J. Kumar,
Aman Khanna, Ajay Mittal, P.G. Bhargava, Dr. R. S. Gandhi, Pradip Agarwal,
Kishore Chandak, Ashok Bayanwala, R. K. Sarawagi, G. B. Pai, Dhananjay Desai.
??? Out of which WIPA 2002 has accepted the following exhibits: Daniel
Montheru, R. K. Sarawagi, B. J. Kumar, Aman Khanna, Mr. Zahidul islam, P.G.
Bhargava, Sachin Goyal, G. B. Pai, Dhananjay Desai.
Out of these 8 accepted entries, 5 entries are in Literature Class and
remaining one in Youth, two in thematic, and one from traditional. The 6
remaining entries have been rejected due to non-availability of frames. I had
even requested them to allot more frames to one of the exhibitor who will be
participating as he has received large Vermeil in the earlier exhibition but
they are unable to fulfill this request also.
Since they have received 8000 frames entries against 2500 frames to
accommodate more entries in the exhibition. ??? They have rejected about
60% entries from every Commissioner quota.
I hope that you will understand the things well.
I had a personal discussion with Commissioner General of WIPA 2000 at
China 99. During the discussion he
assured me to all more to Indian participants but however due to constraint of
frames they could not accommodate more. ??? From PCI as well as National
Commissioner, we cannot force the Organization to accept more entries. It is
totally on the Organization, whatever they allot the frames we have to accept.
??? I hope it clears your query.?
Suri
wrote on April 24, 2000 ?I am far from satisfied by your response five months
after I requested you to act in the matter, which I sadly note you did not.?
Shah
wrote on May 16, 2000 once again with a copy to Pittie ?I
will give the reply after coming from U. K. Australia and other countries.
??? As per the present programme I intend to come back on 17th
June 2000.? Suri is still
awaiting the promised reply by Shah.
Suri
wrote to Pittie on May 5, 2000 ?I am wondering how to obtain a reply
from you? All my letters to you on some very very important issues for the
philately in India, Philatelic Congress of India, and the country failed to
elicit a response from you. As a President do you enjoy such immunity under the
Memorandum of Association and the Rules & Regulations of Philatelic Congress
of India? At American Philatelic Society the failure to reply to the
correspondence is sufficient reason for expulsion from the membership. ???
I believe if a Commissioner is not capable of getting an entry accepted that
have won gold medals at several world exhibitions, he/she is not competent to be
appointed as a Commissioner in future. As President you must call for an
explanation from each one these Commissioners. ??? The Article 27.1 of the
General Regulations of the FIP for Exhibitions (GREX) states: It is in the
interest of the exhibitors that the Exhibition Management and the Commissioners
reach a mutual agreement in advance on the number of frames that can be allotted
to them to avoid embarrassment. ??? I would like to know whether the
commissioners have reached a mutual agreement or not. In case there is a mutual
agreement let me have the copies. If not what action you plan to take against
them.?
Pittie
wrote on May 15, 2000 ?I have made it very clear that the Commissioners
can only try and see that the maximum number of Entry Forms are sent from India.
However, they have no say in the final selection or acceptance of the
exhibits and allotment of frames, which is the prerogative of the Exhibition
Organisers. He can only send the
exhibits, which are accepted by them. Please
refer to Art. 11.1 of the GREX which states: ?11.1 The exhibition management
decides whether an application is to be accepted or rejected.
No reason need to be given for the rejection of an application?.
??? Moreover, Mr. Dilip Shah had also clarified to you in this respect
vide his letter dated 05.04.2000. ??? Regarding Art. 277.1 of the GREX, in
practice some exhibition managements try to reach a mutual agreement in advance
with Commissioners of the Countries, which send in a very large number of
entries. However, as far as I know,
none of our Commissioners have reached any agreement regarding the numbers of
the frames to be allotted to the Indian exhibits, as it will not be practical
considering the small number of entries. ??? I hope this above explains
the position to your satisfaction.?
The Complete text of the
Correspondence can be viewed at
http://www.geocities.com/mjhingan/Content/Features/correspondence.htm
Even
for ESPANA 2000 Suri?s application met with the similar fate despite the
personal assurance of Jatia to Suri.
Part
11, Issue # 68 - June 6, 2002
Anil
Suri wrote ?I must thank you for giving space for my correspondence with PCI
President and Secretary General in your issue # 66. I wish to reiterate the fact
that one is blacklisted if one questions their doings. Especially if the
questions are inconvenient and their doings are not disclosed to the general
membership or even to the governing council members. In my case non-acceptance
of my exhibits at five exhibitions in a row was not coincidence. It was Dilip
Shah who as Secretary General ordered the commissioners not to process or
recommend my exhibits. The records of the concerned exhibitions could easily
verify this. One of the commissioners apprised me of the fact and then only I
started the correspondence quoted in your report. As you can see I failed to
elicit any coherent or to the point answer from these Leaders of Philately in
India. Merit does not seem to merit an entry in international philatelic
exhibitions.?
|