# The Modern Review/Volume 38/Number 3/The Calcutta University and the Modern Review

The Calcutta Universıty and “The Modern Review”
“Calcutta Review,” which is the organ of the Calcutta University, has published in its August (1925) issue an article entitled “Our Critics.” It bears the pseudonym of “Ajax”.
As the writer uses the first person plural in the heading and body of the article, it will not be unfair to ask whether he is the editor of “The Calcutta Review”, or whether he writes officially as the authorised representative of the Calcutta University. If neither supposition be true, it would be difficult to find any justification for his use of the editorial or collective “we”.
But as in his article he takes the opinions of Professor Jadunath Sarkar, T. D. (Dr. Taraknath Das), A. C. (Ashoke Chatterjee), and the editor of this Review to be equally the opinions of the last-mentioned person, it would not be unfair, following his example, to hold Dr. Henry Stephen, the editor of “The Calcutta Review”, responsible for his (‘Ajax”’s) views. The reader may take that to be our justification for taking up the challenge of a masked man.
Even tiros in journalism know that though the editor of a journal is legally responsible for whatever appears in it, the views of his contributors are not necessarily identical with his own opinions. But “Ajax” disingeniously quotes from The Modern Review several passages in his article without indicating who the writers are. On pages 323 and 324 he quotes two passages without mentioning that they bear the initials T. D. On page 324 he quotes another passage without mentioning that they bear the initials A. C. On page 328 he quotes another passage without mentioning that it is initialled T. D. Lastly, he quotes a passage on page 330 omitting the initials A. C.
No wonder, “Ajax” innocently asks, “What our contemporary really advocates it is very difficult for us to say.” As our contributors have not been dragooned into saying exactly what the editor desires, there is naturally some diversity in their opinions. We encourage such variety and diversity. And that for good reasons. When two statements are diametrically opposed to each other, it is usual to use the words “antipodes” or “the two poles” to-indicate such opposition and yet it is the same earth which contains the antipodes and the poles. Therefore, not being supermen, we believe that even those who flatly contradict us may be wholly or at least partly right.
Whatever is beneficial, right and true, is what we “really advocate”, and as it is impossible for us with our limited powers to comprehend and give expression to all the good, the true and the right, we are grateful to all who help us by contributing their views to our pages and also to those who criticise us honestly or even dishonestly.
The Modern Review has been in existence for more than eighteen years, and for the greater part of this period we have tried to point out some of the defects of the Calcutta University. We still maintain that that body “has always been discreetly silent” when “our criticism was unanswerable.” The statements which “Ajax” tries to refute were not made by us but by Professor Jadunath Sarkar. As that gentleman would be well able to defend himself, should he care to parry the blow aimed at his head by a masked man, we do not think our interposition is at all needed.
It is neither necessary nor practicable to give a summary of all our criticisms, published during more than a decade. But let us mention one or two points. In recent years it has been found that the majority of Calcutta matriculates are placed in the first division. It has been pointed out by others, besides ourselves, that in no walk of life do first-rate men outnumber third-rate men. Why does not “this piece of experience,” as The Educational Review calls it, “apply only to the University of Calcutta”? May we also enquire why a few years ago a certain Englishman (we can mention his name if required) was appointed a professor of an oriental language and used to draw Rs. 500 a month without doing any lecturing or other work? These questions were asked more than once in previous issues of this Review without eliciting any reply.
“Ajax” quotes our complaint that we ​once applied to the University Registrar for a regular supply of Minutes and Reports, etc., in lieu of payment or as a matter of courtesy but failed to obtain what we wanted. “Ajax” writes in reply:—
“The printed Minutes and Reports of the University are available in the market, but our friend wanted that the Minutes of the Syndicate should be supplied to him every week before the Senate had considered the decisions of the Syndicate. Whether such a request was reasonable, let the impartial public judge.”
We will take the writer’s statements one by one.
He says, the printed Minutes and Reports of the University are available in the market. Our impression was and still is that the Minutes are not offered for sale to the public. In order to test whether our impression was correct, we turned to the sixty-four page catalogue of Calcutta University publications forming a part of “The Calcutta Review” for August, 1925. There among the “Periodicals, Annuals and Serials”, offered for sale, we find Convocation addresses, University Calendars, University Regulations, University Question Papers, Calcutta University Proceeding of the Councils of Postgraduate Teachings, but not the Minutes or any other Reports.
If the Minutes were “available in the market”, the Registrar could have referred us to “the market” in his reply; but to the best of our recollection (we are writing this at a great distance from our office and library in Calcutta), he did not do so. As far as we can recollect he wrote in reply that the Minutes were meant for the Fellows of the University;—though on our printing this reply in this Review, a gentleman who was not a Fellow sent us a loose part of the Minutes from a mufassil station promising a regular supply of such parts in future. This fact also we mentioned in this Review. At that time neither the Registrar nor “Ajax” had anything to say.
The Registrar has certainly a copy of his reply in his office. If he publishes it in “The Calcutta Review,” we shall be able to judge whether our memory has played us false in this matter.
he next statement made by “Ajax” is that we “wanted that the Minutes of the Syndicate should be supplied to” us “before the Senate had considered the decisions of the Syndicate.” As we have no copy of our application to the Registrar before us as we write. we cannot quote the exact words of our application; but we are morally sure that we did not want the Minutes to be supplied to us “before the Senate had considered the decisions of the Syndicate.” If we did make any such request, let the Registrar publish our application and we shall readily admit that we did so.
If we did make such a request, it was open to the Registrar to point out that such an application was in his opinion unreasonable; but, to the best of our recollection, his reply did not contain any such remark. All doubts can be set at rest by the Registrar publishing the full texts of our application and his reply thereto.
“Ajax” has asked the impartial public to judge whether an application for supplies of printed Syndicate Minutes “before the Senate had considered the decisions of the Syndicate” is “reasonable.” Let us consider the matter in an impersonal manner, not caring whether we made any such request or not.
Let us take some similar or analogous cases, premising that they should not be expected to be on all fours with the matter under discussion.
Are not the decisions of subordinate courts supplied to anybody and published before the publication of the judgment of the High Court on appeal? Do not newspapers sometimes even criticise the judgments of subordinate courts before an appeal has been preferred? Are not even High Court judgments published before a Privy Council appeal has been decided?
The Syndicate is a sort of Committee of the Senate. Are the reports, decisions or recommendations of select committees of legislative bodies, or of other committees, never supplied to the Press and published before the final decisions thereupon of the larger bodies have been reached?
In India as a whole, bills do not become law before they have been passed by the Council of State and have received the assent of the Governor-General after passage through the Legislative Assembly. But that does not prevent the supply to the Press of the debates and other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly in parts as they are printed before the final stage of any legislation has been reached.
In Britain, the House of Lords have their say on the bills passed by the Commoners. But do not the British newspapers and Hansard publish the House of Commons ​reports on matters still to come before the Lords?
In the affairs of the Calcutta Municipality, do not the reports, recommendations, decisions, etc., of committees often obtain due publicity, before they have been considered by the general body of municipal councillors?
We need not multiply cases. “Let the impartial public judge,” whether it would be the height of absurdity and unreason to desire to read or publish or discuss the Minutes of the Syndicate of the Calcutta University “before the Senate had considered the decisions of the Syndicate.” Of course, it may be impracticable or inconvenient to meet such a desire; but that would not necessarily make it unreasonable.
One word more on this subject. Supposing the bound volumes of the Minutes were available in the market, they could be available only at the end of an academic year, often long after the year had closed. Now, by that time the matters, discussions on which are embodied in the Minutes, would cease to be live issues. If we are to be content with commenting on what is merely old history, why not do away with journalism altogether and ask all journalists to better spend their time in debating, e.g., whether Cromwell was justified in getting Charles I beheaded?
The proceedings of provincial and all-India legislative bodies are sent to us, not at the end of each year in bound volumes, but in loose parts as they are printed; and newspapers publish and comment on them still earlier day by day.
As we consider the progress of Bengal dependent in many respects on the progress of the Calcutta University, we think its affairs deserve as much attention as many of those which are discussed by legislative bodies. For this reason we have always desired to have early and timely information about the doings of the University, in order that we may be able to comment on them, when necessary, for the public good. But our attempts have been rewarded with vindictive hostility.
“Ajax” and his friends or patrons “emphatically deny that friendly organs get such reports early.” He admits that The Statesman got such a report on a recent occasion before the Senate had “released” it, calls that paper “hardly a friendly organ,” and says, how it got that report “we do not know.” But some Indian-edited papers also published that report while it was still being discussed, and these have generally supported the University’s demands editorially. How did these friendly organs get it? They did not say that they liked their extracts from The Statesman. And this recent occasion is not the only one on which University documents have found their way to some newspapers “prematurely”. It would be too transparent a trick to consider every such newspaper named as unfriendly. Whenever anybody, masked or unmasked, is engaged in a controversy with the editor of this Review or its contributors, it has been generally seen that he has had access to the records of the University, even to the marks obtained by particular candidates, which are usually supplied to the candidates only on receipt of the prescribed fee. Ajax’s own article shows that he has had access to University records and files, which is irregular unless he is the Registrar or sore other authorised University official. When the Bengali weekly “Sanjibani” inaccurately wrote that the editor of the Prabasi had written an inflammatory article on some University matter, it was contradicted; on which it wrote that it was the editor of the “Modern Review,” who also edited the Prabasi, who had done it. There again it was wrong. Because no article on the subject had appeared even in the “Modern Review”; what had appeared was something written, not by the editor, but by a correspondent, and it was not inflammatory. However, in order that the editor of the “Modern Review” might be discredited, the “Sanjibani’” was supplied by the University with some documents which had not appeared in any published report.
“Ajax” writes :—
“, ... all Reports are considered confidential until they are accepted or modified by the Senate and the Modern Review knows best how it had access to our confidential papers in the past.”
In every country which possesses newspapers, even confidential State papers of great importance leak out on some occasions. Some of our vernacular and English papers which are “friendly” to the University have occasionally in the past obtained much applause from the public by bringing to light official secrets. Why does not “Ajax” apply to these ‘friends’ to learn how such things happen? They are more likely to oblige him. Why not require the red-faced Statesman to explain how it does the trick? Why consider the “brown” “Modern Review” alone especially fortunate in obtaining confidential papers? Why attack the “brown” editor alone? Is ​it because masked men find it easier to waylay “brown” men than red-faced men?
“Ajax” writes:—
“The Modern Review finds fault with the last years budget because the estimated expenditure fell short of and the estimated income exceeded the actual expenditure and income. No budget can be absolutely accurate.”
This is a misleading summary of what we wrote;—we never said or even suggested that budgets can be absolutely accurate. What we actually wrote will be found on pages 235-6 of our last issue, from which we extract only a short passage below:
“If the amount budgeted for be many crores of rupees, the difference of a few thousands or even lakhs between estimates and actuals may be considered trifling. But when the receipts and disbursements range between twelve to fourteen lakhs, it is not insignificant that an anticipated deficit of more than four lakhs turns into a balance of more than one lakh, or if the receipts from sales of books exceed the estimated sum of Rs. 81,000 by Rs. 1,33,500.”
The reference in the last sentence is to the fact that in the University budget it was estimated that the income from the sale of University publications would be Rs. 81,000, but it actually turned out to be Rs. 2,14,500! This difference between what was anticipated and what actually happened was spoken of by the introducer of the budget as a “windfall”; but “Ajax” seeks to account for the “windfall” by observing:
“Nor could the framers of the budget anticipate the favourable results of the abolition of the Sole Agency of University publications.”
We were unaware of this abolition. But it does not seem to be an adequate explanation. A sole agent may get a commission of, say, 38 per cent. By abolishing the sole agency, some saving may have been effected, and let us also suppose that the Calcutta University can beat professional booksellers in pushing the sale of books. But can these facts account for an increase in the sale of books by more than one hundred and sixty-four percent? Some time ago we read in the papers that the University was refusing to sell its prescribed text-books to those book-sellers who would not purchase at the same time some other publications which were not prescribed as text-books. If this was a fact, this novel method of selling unsaleable books may account for the “windfall” to some extent.
“Ajax” expects the readers of the “Calcutta Review” to judge “whether it made the ’the publication of serial stories and other kinds of light literature and common-place popular illustrations some of its main features,’ and by mentioning the name of some distinguished contributors to that periodical, he seeks to suggest that it has not made a bid for subscribers who want generally to read light literature. It is a common trick of controversialists to put into the mouth of their antagonist things which he has not said and then controvert these quite easily. We never said that the “Calcutta Review” has not published any good articles of academic value. What we did say, and say again now, is that it has made “the publication of serial stories and other kinds of light literature and commonplace popular illustrations some of its main features.” We assert that this is literally true, as every honest reader of the “Calcutta Review” will bear witness. In further proof of this statement we quote the following from the notice published in No. 1, Vol. 1 of the series published by the Calcutta University:
“The secretaries will be glad to receive popular articles of general interest from all persons. Technicalities should, as far possible, be avoided.”
“Special Features”
“Short Stories, Poems, Portraits and Cartoons, besides articles of general interest. Fine Indian painting will be a special attraction.”
Why should cartoons be a special feature in a serious academic journal? The notice nowhere says that the “special features” will be papers of “academic value’. And why should technicalities be avoided in the journal of the Calcutta University?
As regards the finances of the “Calcutta Review,” “Ajax” says:
“For obvious reasons, we are not prepared to give more detailed information about our finances to the public.”
The public became entitled to have detailed information, because the income of the “Calcutta Review” was shown in the University budget, but not the expenditure. If the review be self-supporting, why is the budget significantly silent about the expenditure? The answer is not to be found in the writer’s cryptic words “For obvious reasons.”
“Ajax” writes;
The Modern Review is never tired of proclaiming the inefficiency of our teachers, but when the same teachers find more lucrative appointments ​elsewhere, the Prabasi complains that the University cannot retain the services of their abler teachers (e.g. the case of M. K. G., son of J. C. G., to use the apparently enigmatical language of our contemporary).
This is, to say the least, a very unfair way of putting the thing. The editor of the Modern Review has never levelled a sweeping charge of inefficiency at the teachers of the Calcutta University in general, but has held and still holds that some of them are incompetent and some few are lacking in literary honesty.
It is also false to say that “when the same teachers” whose “inefficiency” we are alleged to be “never tired of proclaiming” find more lucrative appointments elsewhere the Prabasi complains that the University cannot retain the services of their abler teachers (e.g., the case of M. K. G, son of J. C. G. to use the apparently enigmatical language of our contemporary).”
It is well-known that the Prabasi and the Modern Review have done more to make known the achievements of the “abler teachers” of the University than any other monthly.
It is also admitted, without the least regret or apology, that we have complained that the Calcutta University could not retain the services of its abler teachers, like, e.g., Dr. Meghnad Saha, Dr. J. Ghosh, Dr. R. C. Majumdar, etc. But it is not true to say that the editor of the Prabasi has ever said that M. K. G., son of J. C. G., was among its abler teachers or complained that the University could not retain his services. Will “Ajax” mention the year, volume, number and page of the Prabasi where the editor made the statements referred to in the previous sentence? The editor of this Review and many of its contributors are not men of ample leisure. So when critics attribute any statements to them, it will be a real favour if they give exact references.
We regret very much that these trivialities have occupied so much of our space. We had many more things to say, but shall content ourselves, in conclusion with pointing out only an indirect admission which “Ajax” has unguardedly made. On page 328, he writes sarcastically :—
“Substitute Sir Asutosh Mookerjee by another person, preferably Jadu Nath himself, and reform is achieved!
“Well, Sir Asutosh is no more, and we find the Professor and the Review now writing of a ruling clique. This is again an unanswerable criticism!”
But on page 330 the same “Ajax” writes:—
We also entirely agree with the Modern Review when it says—
“It is not desirable that the Government should be allowed to come into the field of University management, nor is it fair that the Government should allow the University to be controlled by vested interests and cliques. It is necessary that the Government pay for the advancement of learning; but they should see that things are done properly. We are not suggesting official management of the University. The scholars of the nation should control the University, but in this kingdom of scholars, there must be democracy and not oligarchy or tyranny.
In order to give effect to this wholesome principle our contemporary should urge for early legislation in the right times.
In the above extract from a note by A. C. in the August Modern Review, with which “Ajax” has deigned to “entirely agree”, there are distinct suggestions, if not charges bluntly made, that the University is “controlled by vested interests and cliques,” and that “in this kingdom of scholars” there is “oligarchy or tyranny” instead of democracy”. But we are fortunate in having the unqualified and unreserved agreement of “Ajax” with the views expressed in the extract.
As for legislation “to give effect to this wholesome principle,” we have urged the undertaking of the same again and again. But we thank “Ajax” for the reminder and shall try not to forget it.