# The Modern Review/Volume 38/Number 2/Calcutta University Budget

Calcutta University Budget
A gentleman, unconnected with the Calcutta University, sent us the other day a copy of the Report of the Post-graduate Re-organisation Committee appointed by the Senate on 27th September, 1924. We have not yet had time to read it. We may have our say on it when we shall have gone through it. In the meantime we desire to make a few comments on the University Budget for 1925-26 as published in the daily papers.
In presenting the budget at a Senate meeting Dr. B. C. Ray concluded by saying that there may be “a deficit of Rs. 3,21,676 at the end of the year 1925-26”. He observed that “unless the public and the Government came to the side of the University to meet this liability the work of this University is bound to be affected.”
Our opinion is that there need not have been such a big deficit. In spite of protests the University has kept in its employ some teachers and other employees without whom the work of the University could have been done just_as well. In several previous issues, long ago, we gave details to show where retrenchment was possible without loss of efficiency, and also pointed out where the annual University Post-graduate report did not supply such information as would be needed to judge whether the number of teachers entertained in some particular subject was more than sufficient. The defenders of the University have always “been discreetly Silent where our criticism was unanswerable and have sometimes made a parade of the strength of their arguments where the information of critics has been deficient. This sort of proceeding has been rather funny. For it has been the consistent and irresponsible policy of the powers that be throughout to withhold information. We once formally applied to the University Registrar for a regular supply of all printed University minutes and reports etc., in lieu of payment or as a matter of courtesy such as that extended by Government to editors in the matter of free supply of Government reports, etc. But we failed to obtain what we wanted. So while the University wants public support, it will not keep the organs of public opinion supplied with information, unless they are “friendly”. If an organ is “friendly”, it will be given such information or such inspired articles as may be necessary for advocacy of the clique which runs the institution. That is why we did not get a copy of the Report the Post-Graduate Re-organisation Committee in time.
It may be said that when a deficit has occurred, some body must pay. We suppose there is no law by which the managing clique might be made to pay at least a part of the deficit. So payment from the public treasury cannot be helped. But as regards future payments, it must be shown that there are no superfluous, incompetent or useless employees or teachers wanting in literary honesty, before a public guarantee of future payments is made. If this condition be strictly fulfilled, Government may pay deficits in future also, but only up to a definitely named amount.
The budget Statement of the University as published in The Bengalee contains the following passage:
   They had also a windfall in another direction. In the Budget estimates of 1993-24 the amount of money expected from the Sale proceeds of the University publications was put down at Rs. 81,000. But as a matter of fact the sale of University publications, old and new, had yielded Rs. 21.4,500.
Or, in other words, the actual sum realised was about three times as large as the estimated figure! This is only the most striking example of the accuracy of forecast of the budget-makers. In explaining how instead of an anticipated deficit of Rs. 4,02,237 in the budget estimates of 1924-25 there was a balance Rs. 1,11,890, Dr. B. C. Ray showed how the expenditure in 1923-24 showed a decrease of Rs. 80,000 and the income showed an increase of Rs. 13,500. Moreover, there was the Government contribution of Rs. 10,000 to meet the deficit which the University had on June 30, 1924. This had not apparently been anticipated or taken into consideration in framing the budget. 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. Would it be very uncharitable to suppose that there is sometimes under-estimation of income to show a big deficit?
One cannot help concluding from these facts that, whatever the causes, the budget estimates of the Calcutta University may fall short of or exceed the actuals beyond the range of probability allowed for in budgets carefully prepared by competent and reliable financial experts.
In budget estimates, if income is shown under any head, it is usual to show the expenditure also, if any, under that head. This has not been done in all cases in the budget statement under consideration. Let us take only one example. Under the head “Calcutta Review” an income of Rs. 7,800 has been shown. But on the expenditure side, there is nothing shown under this head. Once there was a question publicly asked as to whether the University had to incur any loss on this organ, to which the answer was that it was self-supporting. Those who are aware of that fact would naturally feel curious to know how much had to be spent on the “Calcutta Review.” As the annual subscription of that monthly is Rs. 8-8, the number of its subscribers must be less than one thousand. It does not seem probable that a periodical of its bulk can meet its own expenses with only nine hundred subscribers or thereabouts. Hence it is probable that the magazine is run at a loss and the deficit is met from University funds. A University is undoubtedly justified in spending something for an organ which publishes original papers of academic value and serves in addition the purpose of a bulletin. But there cannot be any justification for a University to throw away money on a magazine which makes the publication of serial stories and other kinds of light literature and commonplace popular illustrations some of its main features. If any fraction, however small, of the big deficits of the University, be due to expenditure on such ventures, the public and the Government ought not to be asked to make good such portions of the deficits. Hence the framers of the budget ought to have published in the newspapers more details of expenditure than they have done. If it be true that the University wastes only small sums on such ventures, then it was all the more incumbent on these gentlemen to prove that fact by details, in the interest of the University itself.